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 keep. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Building life cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. Reads like the introductory paragraph of an Architecture 101 essay. KidAd talk 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one source and reads like an essay Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTESSAY is irrelevant as that's about "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic", which is not what we have here. The real complaint seems to be that the article is short. If so, per WP:ATD, what's needed is expansion not deletion. Here's some books to get you started. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP.

1. Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment
2. Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment
3. A Life Cycle Approach to Buildings
4. Life-cycle Assessment in Building and Construction
5. Life Cycle Assessment
6. Life-Cycle Cost Models for Green Buildings
7. Life cycle costing for facilities
8. Obtaining Life-Cycle Cost-Effective Facilities in the Department of Defense
9. Integrated Life Cycle Design of Structures
10. Life Cycle Design

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per wp:DINC. I've also started to extend the page to make it less stubby. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 21:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It'll shock Mr. Davidson, but I'm going to agree that this ought to be kept. The idea is obviously an important term; the article as it stands still needs a lot of work but is not completely hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (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.