Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardmore Residence
- 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. Michig (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ardmore Residence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable housing development, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
DeleteLogical1004 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:JUSTAVOTE?? Any rationale for this opinion? --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment : My mistake. Just went through the article, and the way article was written, didn't seem to be notable enough. Also a little quick google search resulted in some advertisements regarding the Ardmore Residence. Regarding the links that Oakshade provided, 2nd and 3rd link are the same, and I think they may not fall under WP:NWEB. Also the website itself claim that Gizmag does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of or the representations made by the Material on the Gizmag Website or any web site that links from the Gizmag Website or any information received as a result of using the Gizmag Website. Regarding the article Designboom, UNStudio distinguishes ardmore residence as living landscape, the article seems to be written from the perspective of the UNStudio itself (even all images are courtesy of UNStudio), so can fall under some sort of advertisement category. As I can't access Architects' Journal First Look, so on first look of the headline, it looks like they are providing a view of the residence, but notability is still a concern as I have one doubt here, every week or every month they provide a first look of skyscrapers, then can all of them have a wiki page?? The notability issue was cleared after going through Singapore's Ardmore Residence named in list of top 10 skyscrapers in the world and The Best New Tall Buildings On The Planet. So I retract my Delete vote. Logical1004 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that the 3rd link below was accidentally a repeat of the 2nd and that has been corrected.--Oakshade (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment : My mistake. Just went through the article, and the way article was written, didn't seem to be notable enough. Also a little quick google search resulted in some advertisements regarding the Ardmore Residence. Regarding the links that Oakshade provided, 2nd and 3rd link are the same, and I think they may not fall under WP:NWEB. Also the website itself claim that Gizmag does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of or the representations made by the Material on the Gizmag Website or any web site that links from the Gizmag Website or any information received as a result of using the Gizmag Website. Regarding the article Designboom, UNStudio distinguishes ardmore residence as living landscape, the article seems to be written from the perspective of the UNStudio itself (even all images are courtesy of UNStudio), so can fall under some sort of advertisement category. As I can't access Architects' Journal First Look, so on first look of the headline, it looks like they are providing a view of the residence, but notability is still a concern as I have one doubt here, every week or every month they provide a first look of skyscrapers, then can all of them have a wiki page?? The notability issue was cleared after going through Singapore's Ardmore Residence named in list of top 10 skyscrapers in the world and The Best New Tall Buildings On The Planet. So I retract my Delete vote. Logical1004 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:JUSTAVOTE?? Any rationale for this opinion? --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As much as I don't like the way the article was created, it seems to be architecturally significant. Examples: Business Insider Australia, The Best New Tall Buildings On The Planet (#8 of 88 on CTBUH 2014 list); Architects' Journal First Look; Designboom, UNStudio distinguishes ardmore residence as living landscape — Brianhe (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Besides the coverage indicating significant recognition and coverage from Brianhe, I also found more significant coverage like that of The Straits Times in a few seconds. This is the second time I've come across an AfD by this nom that seems to ignore easily found coverage. Joseph2302, do you practice WP:BEFORE before opening AfDs? --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I do, I also nominate a lot of AfDs, probably the best part of 100 in the last month, so I'm going to mistakes occasionally. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Joseph2302, 100 AfDs in a month for one editor is an incredible amount. Instead of rushing into AfDs after cursory looks at articles, as WP:AFD stipulates, spend much more time examining if an article qualifies as an AfD candidate. Deletion is a last-resort action. By examining topics more and properly performing WP:BEFORE, mistakes like this will less likely happen.--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have a lot of time, so can spend a lot of time weeding out the rubbish, as well as improving the improvable articles. Also, most of the 100 were obvious fails (non-notable companies created by socks/employees, non-notable sportspeople), and I think it's overly-harsh to question by competencies based on 2 bad nominations. I know AfD is a last resort, but for many articles on here, it's the only appropriate resort. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment : Regarding WP:BEFORE, I agree and I follow it too, but there may be instances that some articles can be missed out that can establish the notability of the article, as if you go through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, every news can't have an wiki-article. So I think AfD is the process if anyone has missed any important article that can establish the notability, that can be discussed it here. Logical1004 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article from Australian Design Review that Oakshade provided passes the threshold of significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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.