Talk:The Star Performing Arts Centre

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because whatever its flaws, there is a credible assertion of notability for this new major performing arts centre in Singapore. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Respeedied as copyvio
However, I see that it is in fact an amalgam of two copyvio cut and pastes: http://www.aedas.com/News/the-star-performing-art-centre-on-straits-times and http://openbuildings.com/buildings/singapore-civic-cultural-complex-profile-4762. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the article has cited the original source as reference of Kok, Melissa (3 November 2012). The Strait Times. Retrieved 3 November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adasuen929 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it was not a copyvio as all data from http://openbuildings.com/buildings/singapore-civic-cultural-complex-profile-4762 has been outdated, such as the development is no longer 54,000m2 development but 62,000m2, also the height of the grand foyer within this source is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adasuen929 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and/or copyvio
I've removed the speedy deletion tag in accordance with your objections. But the fact remains that most of the article is copied from http://www.aedas.com/News/the-star-performing-art-centre-on-straits-times and http://openbuildings.com/buildings/singapore-civic-cultural-complex-profile-4762. I suggest you try rewriting the content in your own words, which would solve the problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested Close paraphrasing and/or copyvio
This page should not be Close paraphrasing and/or copyvio, because based on your earlier suggestion, the article has been amended. Thanks for your comments. (talk 07:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've got a bit more experience here than you and I realize that some of our policies may be difficult to grasp for newcomers. I've edited down the article to the bare facts, which is all this encyclopedia is supposed to contain. We need to stay away from "WP:PEACOCK" terms or "WP:SPAM" text which promotes the subject. We need to strive to use a WP:NEUTRAL tone. Take a look at my edit and by feel free to improve on it, by all means, but please don't put back in language that is promotional or vague in nature. I've added a 2nd news reference, allowing us to remove to one-source tag, but more reliable sources are still needed. best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)