Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park View Office Tower

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park View Office Tower[edit]

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

Not notable building Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable building. Importance asserted: "the first green building in Central Asia", in fact! --do ncr am 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It attained a green certification; buildings do that all the time (and many more will after this one in the region). Remove that and you have yet another office building with the same facilities as most office buildings have. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be very appropriate for the article to define what is meant by "green", to contrast vs. many pre-historic huts, historic homes made of natural materials of this region, etc. So do explain that it is the first new construction LEEDS-certified building of any kind, or building of some type, and be precise about the region. It is appropriate to tag the article to ask for more precision. Being the first Green building in Central Asia still sounds like quite a strong assertion of notability, and Mrschimpf's comment seems to confirm that details are available. --do ncr am 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source says it "received a “very good” BREEAM certificate". Trouble is, it is the third out of five passing grades ("outstanding" and "excellent" are better), and is defined as "top 25% of UK new non-domestic buildings (advanced good practice)".[1] That does not seem remarkable to me. I'd change my mind if more coverage could be found. GregorB (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just being the first green building in asia (kazakstan isnt really asia but..) probably isnt enough for notability but it has recieved quite a decent amount of coverage in kazak and russian national sources, a good example being this forbes article: [2], and here are a few more [3] [4], IBM russia also have their hq in the new building. I think it passes WP:GNG, and this could be more proven if someone could check for russian/kazak sources in the appropriate languages as this would further assert my point. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:09, 19 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.