Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Macquarie Place


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

1 Macquarie Place

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.  // Timothy ::  talk  22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Mild Keep Has an Emporis listing, seems to have some notability, but not much is used to source the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Emporis is hugely indiscriminate and from what I can tell lists every building it can get stats on. I can't see either it or skyscraper.com as conferring notability in their listings. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - This is a prominent building in Sydney on the waterfront in Circular Quay that clearly meets GNG. The history of its development was a significant news item during the 60s, 70s and 80s (due to its waterfront location) - it attracted significant controversy about its construction, and the building was empty for a long period of time even after construction. There will be plenty of news coverage about the construction of the tower from the media at the time (which you won't find by doing a Google search, - you need to look a bit harder than that). Has its own Emporis page . To give you an idea of the more recent significant coverage it has received, only in July this year it received independent coverage about being the first touch-free building in Australia (examples from 2 different media companies - , ). Deus et lex (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Every notable building has an Emporis listing. What's important is that this has significant coverage back to the 1980s and even dating back to the 1970s. I've added a few sources to the article - they're not great, but a building that had the highest rents in a major world city should definitely have received WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, and that's the case here. (Search for Gateway Plaza for the older articles.) SportingFlyer  T · C  18:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - a huge skyscraper with RS? Sign me up for this big boy. jp×g 12:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm a bit surprised that sources are so hard to find for this one but I reckon there's about enough to demonstrate GNG Spiderone  11:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - as I mentioned above, most sources are likely to be offline as the ones around the construction controversies pre-date the internet! Deus et lex (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2020 (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.