Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIA 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 keep Whether or not the subject meets the notability guidelines and should be mentioned on Wikipedia doesn't appear to be in dispute. However, there does appear to be reasonable arguments for a possible merger, but this is out of the scope of Articles for Deletion. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  00:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

AIA Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I feel it's no more notable than any one of the hundreds of skyscrapers in the city. 99th tallest in Hong Kong is no big deal. No sources Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. Probably the second tallest on the Island Eastern district. Jeremy Hopkins (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And how does that make it notable? I'm not even sure if the actual tallest would be without some other reason. Redirect into List of 100 tallest skyscrapers in Hong Kong, which seems notable enough for a list article (and can therefore be created if you want to keep some of this info). - Jorgath (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: If Jorgath had actually just seen the article before making a comment in an AfD discussion, he/she would know that there is in fact -and since 2007- an article called List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: I did in fact see the article, although I admittedly was multitasking and missed the "See Also" link. My point nonetheless stands. I do not contest that this building is sufficiently notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but I argue that it is not sufficient to warrant its own article rather than a mention on a relevant list. - Jorgath (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.--JuntungWu (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. Why? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete - Many of these tall buildings (like this one) are pieces of prime real estate that are should be judged by the criteria of WP:CORP, in my opinion. Others have some landmark or architectural significance. There's no evidence this one does, it seems to be non-notable, one of many dozen similar in HK. The reason I'm slightly hesitant about this AfD discussion is the precedent it might set - probably two thirds of the articles listed in List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong could probably be deleted for similar reasons. Something makes me think the idea of a notability criteria for buildings should be re-opened and resolved. Sionk (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Compare in context to other tall buildings, i.e. 'Tallest Buildings in London' or 'Toronto' or 'Miami' or 'Singapore'. I think you'll see that AIA tower is notable in comparison i.e: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Not planning on setting a precedent that could lead to thousands of buildings for AfD. Bunston (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which does not make the AIA Tower notable. Personally if I had my way I'd be tempted to delete many other tall building articles on Wikipedia, if I had the time. A lot of them are non-notable (as Wikipedia defines it). Even the WikiProject Skyscrapers project suggests only the Top 10 tall buildings in each city should have articles. Sionk (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep That's a misquotation of their standard. The actual wording is "In general, at least the 10 tallest structures in a city should always have separate articles." In cities with many notable buildings, there will of course be many more suitable for articles.  DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So is anyone going to explain what makes this building notable enough for its own article? Sionk (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It's covered in this book if anyone has a hardcopy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2012 (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.