Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Residence (skyscraper)

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King's Residence (skyscraper)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 周盼儀 (2020-01-23). "京城King Park 擘劃高雄未來的美好生活願景" [King Park plans a vision for a better life in Kaohsiung for the future]. zh:商業周刊 (臺灣) (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
  This is a profile of 京城King Park in Business Weekly (Taiwan) that is over 2,000 words long.
2. 林耀文 (2019-11-04). "「京城King Park」今年成交12億坐穩高雄豪宅王" [King Park sold for 1.2 billion this year. It's comfortably positioned as the Kaohsiung mansion king]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
3. 陳建宇 (2020-01-25). "【高雄豪宅王】南台灣土地公代表作「京城KING PARK」　創年度最貴紀錄" [[Kaohsiung Mansion] Southern Taiwan Land Corporation's representative work "Capital King Park" sets annual expensive record]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
4. 顏瑞田 (2018-08-15). "京城京城穩居高雄豪宅榜首" [Capital City, Capital City firmly ranked first in Kaohsiung's luxury home list]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
5. 陳建宇 (2019-07-12). "高雄富人撐不住？京城地標型豪宅最低單價戶　面臨5字頭保衛戰" [Can the rich in Kaohsiung support it? The lowest unit price households of landmark luxury houses in capital are facing the battle]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 「京城King Park」 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung. A condensed summary of the building description can be added to the notes for its listing on that table. BD2412 T 20:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I oppose a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung because 「京城King Park」 has sufficient coverage (including the 2,000-word profile in Business Weekly (Taiwan) to establish notability and to support a standalone article.
Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages says:
Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight.
Covering 「京城King Park as part of a larger article (List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung) does not provide "more complete context that would be lost on a separate page", so I would prefer a standalone article over a merge to a lengthy list.
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. There is enough to establish notability. VocalIndia (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant coverage. Remember to be careful when assessing 'significant coverage' for subjects primarily covered by non-Anglophone sources. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, appears to be notable per Cunard. Weak because I can't read the sources in their native language. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.