Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Tower, Jaipur

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Tower, Jaipur[edit]

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

This article has been Speedily Deleted previously under WP:G11 - the article has being recreated complete with months-old improvement tag. I request Deletion & Salting of this article - WP:SNOW may apply here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation of this. I have tagged the article accordingly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted via Prod at Gaurav Tower. I have removed the copyright content and the G12 tag. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Diannaa: Is there anything in the prodded article that would help this discussion? Also, what was the source you have been looking at? Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the copy vio was this Wordpress document. The prodded article was unsourced, and its content was

Gaurav Towers (abbreviated as GT) are actually a group of buildings situated in Jaipur city of India. Location : Near Malviya Nagar Pulia, Malviya nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Gaurav Towers is the most happening joint in Jaipur, attracts both shoppers and fun seekers. Spread across a sprawling area of 25,000 sq meters, GT is perfect in terms of ambience, space, variety and hassle free parking.

No sources, no coords. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Changes made to the article, to remove copyrighted content, have reduced the article to a single-sentence unreferenced stub. There's no claim of notability in the article, meaning the General Notability Guidelines can't possibly be met. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, Wikipedia's notability is determined outside of Wikipedia. See also WP:DEL7, which even there an article with no sources requires evidence from a search that sources are not available. If you want to delete because the article has no sources, cite the policy WP:IAR, and explain why ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and there's absolutely no substance here. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I just removed a speedy deletion tag by User:SwisterTwister, who doesn't think that 117 stores, which ICSC classifies as a super-regional mall, is an indicia of significance. Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources beyond ads and social media. I don't believe I have ever previously seen an argument that number of stores is a significant factor in notabililty discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So an editor who has spent three minutes preparing a !vote doesn't draw your attention, but evidence that this topic is in the largest category used in industry standards, is a reason to declare your ignorance of shopping malls and dis the evidence? I don't get it. Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this comment was directed at me - no ping, which is odd, so I can't be sure - then I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that WP:G11 can be applied without any time restriction. Therefore, there's no reason for my AfD to draw any attention. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: No, this comment was not directed at you. If you know how to read indents, I was responding to User:Eggishorn. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm just trying to see which user spent 3 minutes preparing a !vote - nothing draws my attention. Never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (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.