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 speedily kept under criterion #1 (nominator withdrew, no dissenting opinions). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Custom House, Liverpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Should be merged with Liverpool. Jab843 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Customs buildings are often prestige buildings that are likely to be the subject of reliable sources, which is the case here. The British Library's catalogue has a listing for a 90-page book published in 1928 about this building. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Note also that the Liverpool article is already 148K and so exceeds the guidance of WP:SIZE. Note also that it says "Liverpool's Custom House was the single largest contributor to the British Exchequer" and so this seems to be a topic with much potential. Warden (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The custom house of a port the size of Liverpool is clearly going to be a notable building, even if it no longer exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I withdraw my nomination of this article to xfd. It has been made clear that it should exist, and I am now aware of WP:SIZE. Jab843 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (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.