Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchard Towers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Tim Song (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orchard Towers[edit]
- Orchard Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was deleted out of process via CSD A7. There's no CSD for buildings, so restored and elevated to AFD until there's a CSD for buildings. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NRVE and WP:NOTSCANDAL. A search on Google yields results of mainly netizen opinion and gossip, thus fails WP:WEB. Weak WP:SNOW. Optakeover(Talk) 12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Noticed that latest edits by contributor includes proper sources which proves notability, and scandalous text removed. Optakeover(Talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Orchard Towers is, far and away, Singapore's most notorious nightspot and there are oodles of references for this. Start here: [1] [2] [3] [4] Quoting the first (Contours of culture: space and social difference in Singapore, Robbie B. H. Goh, Hong Kong Univ. Press): "The best known of these is probably Orchard Towers ... which at night becomes a notorious den of vice. Orchard Towers thus becomes a landmark for foreigners..." The article admittedly needs work, but I'm putting a little elbow grease into it as we speak. Jpatokal (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are not enough sources presented that meet multiple/significance threshold as required by WP:GNG. A passing mention in a book is only evidence that the subject should be mentioned in a relevant article, not that it deserves its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now references for articles exclusively or primarily about Orchard Towers in the Straits Times, Channel NewsAsia, Lonely Planet and TimeOut Singapore. How many more sources would you like? Jpatokal (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The LonelyPlanet mention is all of two sentences. The Straits Times piece is about the prostitutes, not the building itself (it has all of two or maybe three sentences about it in the article.) To call these significant mentions is disingenuous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, what Straits Times piece might you be referring to? And oh, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (WP:GNG), and the articles discussing prostitutes are very specific about Orchard Towers being the centre of the action -- that's precisely what it's (in)famous for, after all. Jpatokal (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Straits Times article referenced as evidence of notability. The article is about prostitution, and the mention that there are hookers in the building is trivial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG's definition of "trivial" is "a one sentence mention." The coverage in the Straits Times piece is well beyond a "once sentence mention." Even if that source is primarily about prostitution, WP:GNG does not discount sources that aren't primarily about a given topic as long as the coverage of the topic in that source is significant.--Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Straits Times article referenced as evidence of notability. The article is about prostitution, and the mention that there are hookers in the building is trivial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, what Straits Times piece might you be referring to? And oh, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (WP:GNG), and the articles discussing prostitutes are very specific about Orchard Towers being the centre of the action -- that's precisely what it's (in)famous for, after all. Jpatokal (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The LonelyPlanet mention is all of two sentences. The Straits Times piece is about the prostitutes, not the building itself (it has all of two or maybe three sentences about it in the article.) To call these significant mentions is disingenuous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now references for articles exclusively or primarily about Orchard Towers in the Straits Times, Channel NewsAsia, Lonely Planet and TimeOut Singapore. How many more sources would you like? Jpatokal (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep GNG is satisfied by the multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage which are now included as references in the article. Edison (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It does appear to pass WP:GNG as the coverage of this topic is significant. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article is written as per Wikipedia standards and is well sourced. This article has more information then just the building information. --Shorty23sin (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (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.