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 redirect to Stock Exchange Tower. Sandstein 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

125 Old Broad Street

125 Old Broad Street (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This should be merged with Stock Exchange Tower and then replaced with a redirect. Nerd1a4i ( talk) 17:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete and redirect duplicate article, as redirect alone will leave attribution issues. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 07:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge, to Stock Exchange Tower per WP:OVERLAP, this article does have a little extra info (ie. tenant list) than the target and although (presently) unreferenced, would be helpful to readers. Coolabahapple ( talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete and Merge with the "Stock Exchange Tower" article. The "125 Old Broad Street" page was meant to be a redirect, and I was the one who created this redirect. It turns out that some IPs suddenly removed the redirect and made a duplicate article out of it. This occurred four times in the past few years. Jim856796 ( talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Just redirect no need to delete. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect is appropriate. This was deliberately created because the name is a valid alternative name for the building. No rationale to delete outright has been presented. This didn't really need an AFD discussion at all, it could have simply been redirected without controversy I think. At most some notice for discussion at the Talk page could have been given, but no need for the attention of many AFD editors here. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:17, 28 February 2018 (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.