Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Commercial 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 no consensus. Nakon 02:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Commercial Center[edit]

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

Whilst this maybe notable for being a 100m tall building, this article does not assert why it should be to warrant an article in addition that there are no source to claim verifiability and it is written in a promotional manner. Donnie Park (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Entirely rewritten with 4 inline citations and WikiProject templates, this skyscraper should be kept. No promotional tone.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am satisfied with this version as it is~~, but then the problem therein is WP:GNG or the lack of WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT as none of the source are. Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide reliable amd independent source: Emporis collects information about buildings worldwide. Our website covers technical information on all kinds of buildings, whether skyscrapers, high-rises, halls or stadions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dthomsen8 My simple answer for your claim that Emporis is a reliable source is that it is WP:NOTDIRECTORY for every tall buildings out there. Donnie Park (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft instead for now perhaps as this could be acceptable but is also still questionable for better. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep - Same as above. WikiPedia needs better coverage of Central Asia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to give you a rebuttal in the form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, do you have magazines or newspapers better than those offered as source, if so, I'll be happy to have this passed as notable. Also, why are you voted keep this twice. Donnie Park (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dthomsen8, you can't !vote twice. I'm striking your second !vote (and your comment doesn't address notability). Prhartcom (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been looking up the articles of every semi-notable building I can think of, and none of them have references either. For example, see Blue Sky Tower, the building down the street from this one and the tallest building in Mongolia. I don't know why we're picking on this one, in particular. I can't even imagine a secondary source reporting on a building. Prhartcom (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emporis is the refernce and reliable source for many thousands of building articles around the world in Wikipedia, just as you say, but WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not a challenge to its reliability elsewhere, else Wikipedia would not have detailed and accurate information on many buildings. There may be newspaper articles about buildings in Mongolia, but Mongolian is not easily searched.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references appear to show coverage beyond directory-type information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (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.