Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tianbao Time Plaza

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. Sandstein 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tianbao Time Plaza[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)

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

This page was just accepted via AfC even though it has but a single source of unknown quality in Chinese. I was unable to find any English language sources to confirm the building even exists - which makes demonstrating the building is notable pretty tough. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no requirements that an article on the English Wikipedia requires English sources. I agree that the article would greatly benefit from more sources, that's why I didn't move the article into the main space myself yet.Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find reliable sources in English or Chinese. ~~Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTALBALL.~~ Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck "Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTALBALL", as it looks like it has been verified and it was completed in 2015. I'm leaving my !vote as Delete as there is still only one independent, working ref and a short one at that, not really enough for an encyclopedic, NPOV article to be written. That said, significant Chinese skyscrapers are, to me, a suitable subject for the project and I would be happy to change my !vote if two or three more substantial sources were added which contribute more to the page (sources which could address questions like who designed it, who financed it, who are the main tenants, who built it, what it replaced, and so on). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The single source itself is reliable (although Sohu is questionable in general, being an advertisement company), but I wasn't able to find any others in English OR Chinese, and I have trouble justifying an article of this nature that has only 1 source. Weak delete and remake if more reliable sources publish news about the building. Nanophosis (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability, and I don't understand what makes "this" building as worthy of special notice. Obviously English prose and sources would greatly help us understand what makes this building special, but absent that we have to default to delete. No opposition to Drafting, but prohibit this from being immunized against G13. Either the page will improve or it can be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On first blush a 45 story building might he notable but when I could not establish it was notable or even exists I took off the "promising draft" template, an action which gave it another 6 months to find sources. That triggered another editor to promote the page to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, an action which starts a six-month clock after which it will be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no one else edits it, possibly. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Could not find any more reliable sources. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep the sources in the article probably do not meet GNG requirements (including the sohu one which has a desclaimer saying the article is self-published), but the subject apparently has some leading tech in construction safety that attracted a provincial work safety supervision bureau-lead study [1]. --Skyfiler (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2018 (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.