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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilshire Regent

[edit]

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

Publicity puff. No WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added more reliable sources. Not sure what you considered to be publicity but I removed price data in case that was it (though many condominium building articles have price data). Article is certainly in line with other articles about condominium buildings. Jfc4me 10:17, 13 December 2015 (PST)

Hello, all. I still don't see any sources that make this building so WP:Notable. If it were, then the Los Angeles Times or some other neutral source would have commented on it. Also, just because WP:Other stuff exists doesn't necessarily mean that this article should exist as well. So I don't think it should be in the encyclopedia until we get more comment on it elsewhere. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no comment on the nomination itself. @BeenAroundAWhile: Please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO for future nominations. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 20:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (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.