Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniform Distribution and Accreditation Centre

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. Merging or redirecting can be WP:BOLDly done through the usual channels if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Distribution and Accreditation Centre

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

What could be less notable than a warehouse with changing rooms? — Kpalion^(talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GEOFEAT. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of GEOFEAT exactly? The article doesn't say anything about the building's "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", let alone about it being "officially assigned the status of cultural or national heritage". What it does says is that it will soon be demolished to make room for something else. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought that being part of the Olympics was socio-economic enough to fulfill that, regardless it does fulfill WP:GNG as well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's next? Are Olympic portable toilets notable too? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there are sufficiant reliable sources to make Olympic portable toilets notable. The UDAC does have sufficiant reliable sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it somewhere. It was clearly significant in the organisation of the Olympics and Paralympics, but a NN warehouse before that, and is now expectd to be demolished. It is worth a short paragraph in something relating to LOCOG. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics#Transport and infrastructure, since it's already mentioned there. This should technically fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. I can understand there being articles on competition venues, but this is basically a staff room whose sole claim to notability is its use during the Olympics. Only the BBC source [1] covers the venue in any depth, the rest are either incidental or press releases . Funny ^Pika! 04:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD has been running since 16 January and since no two comments come to the same conclusion. I'd say that 20+ days is sufficient time. I move that this be closed as No Consensus. The C of E God save The Queen! (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (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.