Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India International Trade Center

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, I suggest nominating these articles one by one, notability just varies way too much for this discussion to be useful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India International Trade Center[edit]

Stub with no references or assertion of notability. Violates WP:Crystal, has been tagged as unreferenced and tagged as needing expansion since early 2007, around a dozen edits since Feb 2007, and from my searches, appears to be unverifiable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all show the same lack of verifiable sources, their main source is self-referencing skyscraper websites Emporis and Skyscaperpage.com, very few have notable and verifiable sources, I went through the category and left out those which do show verifiable sources out of these afd, and even added some sources myself:

Keep all, nominator doesn't appear to be looking at these articles. Crystal Heights has had multiple references from the first revision. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had mistaken the Crystal Heights article for the Crystal Island one, I have since removed the Crystal Heights from the AFD. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not the only error, I check the Millennium Tower and the Ben Ali and both seem to point to references, in spite of which you've labeled them as lacking sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ali has an unverifiable newspaper article from 1985 as it's sole source, and perhaps the Millennium tower as vanity, due it only really existing as a webpage by the company who designed it years ago?Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium has a book reference that seems unrelated to the designer, and how in the world are the Ben Ali newspaper articles "unverifiable"? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Admittedly they're all about structures, but these articles don't have quite enough in common for deleting them all via a group nomination to seem appropriate. They'll vary widely in notability, regardless of how much work the articles need. Doczilla (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I tend to side with WP:PAPER, so I'm leaning more toward a general Keep. Keep those which link to official websites and tag with {{refimprove}}. For those with links to Skyscraperpage or Emporis, I'd tag with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} -- I'd hate to delete something which could be a notable building when all the article needs is a little love. For those with nothing at all, I'm neutral on the subject: I'd be fine with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} or with deletion. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - re Grollo Tower and Burj Dubai only, with possible redirect. Achromatic (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. (Why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that if these had been projects of similar notability in the US, they would not have been nominated for deletion?) Halfmast (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 375 Wacker is in New York, I'm Australian, and have included an Australian building in the list. This has nothing to do with where the buildings are. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. None of these articles have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. This is real estate-cruft which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Some of these are potentially notable, as mentioned above. Majoreditor (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Millennium Tower, Tokyo as it does appear to be sourced (being an offline source does not make it a bad source, indeed adding offline sources should be encouraged). Probably close whole discussion as trainwreck and nominate individually any which do not have any sources. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many to most of these are non-notable. They aren't sourced and they don't google. If the article creator isn't gracious enough to provide sources, and we can't find any sources, what else is there to do but assume that these proposed projects are simply not anything important enough to be covered in the media? Indeed, many seem to be projects that were abandoned a long time ago after very little planning. For every large building proposed there are many that never get beyond the concept stage. Any 60 or 70 story building in the world is probably notable, but not every plan for a 60 or 70 story building. Nevertheless, some of these do appear to be notable. We can't realistically deal with all of these as a group, so I would suggest closing this discussion as a "keep" then carefully nominating any seemingly non-notable buildings one by one, and preferably not all on the same day. Wikidemo (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and renominate as per Wikidemo --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Emporis.com is a reliable source (see the Emporis article, and so is http://skyscraperpage.com The information displayed on those sites goes through the same editorial review process that information in a printed encyclopedia does. --Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emporis might be reliable, but it does not instantly give an article notability to Wiki standards. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above comment - Emporis aims to be more comprehensive than we do on unbuilt proposals. If being in Emporis or any other directory automatically made an unbuilt structure notable we would potentially subsume all of the content there, which is probably unsustainable. Wikidemo (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it laid out how comprehensive we intend to be in this area? Surely this is determined by our general content policies, and can achieve whatever level of comprehensiveness the reliable sources support? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (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.