The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Going by strict headcount, "keep"s outnumber "redirect"s, but the keep arguments are strongly dependent on either "it's notable" without much evidence offered, "other things have articles as well" or on notability that occurred because of the fire. So no consensus, perhaps leaning somewhat towards "keep". Merger arguments should be handled in a dedicated discussion, most likely Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is sufficient coverage of the building history in Grenfell Tower fire. A standalone article on the building (fork) is unnecessary. The building was not notable prior to the fire. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Grenfell_Tower_fire#The_building covers this topic in more detail already, I don't think any content merging needs to be done. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Grenfell_Tower_fire#The_building per Power~enwiki, which is the right place for this. --Lockley (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to main article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to article about the fire; the event is more notable than the building itself. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that X is more notable than Y does not mean that Y in itself is not notable. CLW (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that notability is solely due to the fire topic is crucial though. It's not notable like Titanic and Sinking of the RMS Titanic, is it? Widefox; talk 20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It should be even more notable - Titanic had barely any history beyond the iceberg as it was the maiden cruise and it just sank. This building had over 40 years of history between the fire and repercussions will last far longer. These two topics: the bulding and the fire - are far more seperate than Titanic and its incident. aegis maelstrom δ 07:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge' to Lancaster West Estate. There is much about the building that is not overly relevant to the fire. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Redirect and merge - per above, all the relevant information of the building is already included in the article on the fire. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and disambig, given that the correct destination is not entirely clearcut. 89.101.50.203 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an acceptable sub-article of Grenfell Tower fire. That article is long enough that it can be justified to spin out the information about the tower itself and its history into a separate article. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robofish How does that work if the RSed content just duplicates the fire topic, with no chance to remove it from the main article? Widefox; talk 17:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I'm not seeing a strong case that the building needs a separate article from the event. If the building had any independent notability prior to the fire, then the article would likely have already existed — and as it stands, almost everything in the building's article is a straight cut and paste of content from the fire article anyway. So we don't really need two separate articles here. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, from now on we should delete all the new articles about events and buildings more than one year old because "they should have existed". Bravo. aegis maelstrom δ 07:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What a ridiculous AFD. We have articles on tons of buildings, big and small, but this one shouldn't have an article -- why, because it is currently in the news? Nonsensical on its face. You're saying notability of a subject has an inverse relationship to events that happen to it. With that logic, we should delete all the arena pages and instead have articles on all the concerts that happened there. Yet, I don't see any AFD for Manchester Arena, which, just like this building, is now better known for what happened to it than it was as itself. But it gets a pass, because.... why exactly?
  • Before anyone says "apartment towers aren't notable," there are literally hundreds of articles on apartment/condo towers. Why, for example, do we not delete the article for Olive 8? Presidential Towers? Market Square Tower? Panorama Tower? Literally hundreds. Why? Because above all, WP:PAPER.

So why don't we create The Panorama, Ashford? Because above all, WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The building and the event are not two separate notability loci — they're one locus of notability together. They are not comparable to an event venue that already had preexisting notability prior to the bombing attack. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • As for the duplicative content in the event-based article, that content should be placed here and the event article should reference it. That would make organizational sense. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main focus of the fire topic is currently the building, so that would remove the crucial part. Widefox; talk 02:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It doesn't matter if the building was notable in the past. Today it is notable; it is even one of the best known British buildings in the world. (Otherwise, you could as well argue that the article on Theresa May must be changed to "Political career of Theresa May", because she was not notable before that.) There is enough standalone information on this building, which makes sense to be outsourced from the fire article. --PM3 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well put and has prospects for expanion (i.e. post fire demolition works etc). Now, what if this article existed before the fire? Would it still be sent to AFD? 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:F536:A500:C284:621B (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Acceptable as a spin off article from the one about the fire, which currently stands at 128KB. Sadly because of the fire the building itself is notable and passes WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk)
• Keep as an acceptable sub-article of Lancaster West Estate. That article is being worked on and it can be justified to spin out the information about the tower itself and its history into a separate article. In considering notability of working class communities it seem ridiculous that you have to fight your corner, but for one house not 3 miles away occupied by couple of nonagenarians and a few corgies that is never challenged. ClemRutter (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a notable building. Deb (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article about the fire is getting pretty long. There's a lot of info in it about the building not directly related to the fire that could be transferred to the article about the building.Canuck85 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable now!! The history of the building and planning decisions leading up to the fire is as important as the fire itself! There's no question that this is a notable building – even this debate about the deletion of its article is becoming notable! —James Haigh (talk) 2017-06-19T23:56:03Z
• Keep This fire will be long memorable, and as the subject of said fire, the tower is inherently notable SOXROX (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An acceptable WP:SPINOFF. This is a very major disaster with highly significant consequences. The article will continue to grow and it makes sense to have a separate article for the building. Meets WP:GNG itself. AusLondonder (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no doubt in my mind that the structure is notable. The article about the fire should briefly touch upon the relevant historical information, with fuller information being contained in this article. CLW (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per Ronan Point, MS Herald of Free Enterprise and Piper Alpha - if an object is known primarily for one event, consensus is that the article should focus on that. If the fire had never happened, the building would be non notable and an article on it would probably have been deleted or merged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two weeks ago, the building probably wouldn't have been notable. Now it's one of most well-known in whole London. --Voyager (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative Close I suspect this will eventually be merged, but the Grenfell Tower fire editors appear to be using this as a sub-page now, so it should be kept for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfectly notable, brutalist building. The recent fire only increased its importance. aegis maelstrom δ 12:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fire is notable, and the Lancaster West Estate is also notable. Between those two articles, this one seems redundant. Shritwod (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before the fire, I could see the reason for deletion however this is now probably one of the most notable tower blocks in the United Kingdom and this page could be used to house information that is unsuitable for the Grenfell Tower fire article. There are also other tower blocks/estates less notable than Grenfell Tower that also have articles, including Keeling House and The Barbican Estate. Commyguy (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in its own right, even without the fire. WCM_email 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – this is a necessary fork from the fire article because of the sheer amount of information about what went on the past few years. I worked on the fire article when Grenfell Tower was a redirect and it was just too much. The reason it is currently seems redundant is that the details about the building on the fire article needs to be reduced to summaries. The fact that there was an action group desperately trying to raise the alarm about problems with this building adds to its notability. The eventual inquiry will result in even more info about things that occurred prior to the fire. There are four decades of this building's history, its management and occupants that are going to be put under a microscope. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge WP:REDUNDANTFORK to fire (or better target is Lancaster West Estate) - sourcing is poor with unreliable and primaries plus ones for the fire topic. Duplicate of Grenfell Tower fire#The building The topic scope is 99% overlap - the focus of the fire topic is currently about the building, so it only hinders readers to split it now. Better together. If/when needed, split per WP:SPINOUT, not now. Widefox; talk 17:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to Grenfell Tower fire. No extensive coverage outside of the fire's coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and stop meddling with editors who are actually trying to develop Wikipedia coverage of topics. Leave it to "local" editors to choose to split out material or merge it back in. It seems, per Wikimandia that they want to keep stuff split out and develop it further, and also to reduce any redundancy in the event article by editing down to summary information there. But the rest of the world needs to back the hell off and let the active developing editor(s) do what they want. --doncram 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, @Doncram: rules, 'cos HE'S A LOCAL and ONLY HE KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING. So, if you don't live in Kensington, stay away from the article! WWGB (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I generally prefer one decent article to two shit ones. Just my 2c. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We go by consensus, and non ownership of articles. A fork may or may not aid readers, having a magnet for non-RS based second article doesn't help IMHO. Widefox; talk 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the article about the fire. Not notable before the fire. We have an article about the estate it's on now (which could do with more on subsections on specific buildings); we do not need a separate article about this building.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This building is notable for only one event, and one event only. The fire is notable, the building is not. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For those saying this is a needed fork, I think the answer is to trim the fire article, rather than make two separate articles. Just because something has been reported in the media about the tower, does not mean it has to be noted on Wikipedia. It has to tie somehow into the fire. Also, there is a tendency to go into too much detail about recent events. Information that wouldn't be terribly interesting to people years or decades from now. This information can be trimmed or condensed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: size Yes, currently both would benefit a trim, and size in the fire article can not be saved as the building is crucial to the topic, so there's downsides of splitting the topic with no upside. In future there will be more details, but offset against less RECENTISM, so best evaluated then, and the outcome of this AfD should not prejudice that then. Widefox; talk 00:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this building was already notable before the fire. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 11:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above reasons, the tower itself was notable before last week's tragedy. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:C33:D17F:2859:92CF (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and TROUT to the nominator. Amisom (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amisom: And a DICK back at you. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @WWGB: Do I pay extra for the abuse or is it complimentary? Amisom (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per Oddbodz's rationale. Carbrera (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - Doubtless this wouldn't have been made were it not for the fire. Ignoring that the question is 'is it notable'? Looking through Wikipedia there are pages on similar tall but pretty unremarkable buildings. I am inclined to say that it has a history, local notability and comparable notability with other pages. Maybe more similar blocks will have pages like this, we'll see. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no adequate case for deletion. There is indeed a sensible discussion to be had on redirecting or merging but that is far better handled on the talk page. Thincat (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both the building and the fire are notable, and there seems to be plenty of information about both to have two articles on them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - such a highly referenced building and with no guideline really putting a president towards deletion I see no reason for it. The article is in a good condition as well with good sources. I am more surprised that no one had made an article about this block before.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge - The Grenfell Tower is not notable on its own, even though the fire is notable. If it didn't need an article before the fire, then it doesn't need one now. Calicodragon (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the before and after argument is irrelevant. Someone could have made an article about the tower years ago but simply have not. That it is made now is not relevant to the fire itself.BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both the building and the fire are independently notable. We have plenty of articles on tall buildings, and need more - have done several, but can't create them all myself! Edwardx (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect & Merge - See little point in forking content development effort about one topic across two articles. At present and going forward the one matter that dominates this topic is the fire. Gosgood (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.