Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArthaLand 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   no consensus. Another AfD which shows the problem with mass nominations, I'd suggest that if any of these don't pass GNG (Picadilly Star and to a lesser extent BGC Stopover Pavillion look particularly shaky) then they be submitted as separate nominations Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

ArthaLand Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A group of already completed or yet to be built office towers in the Philippines. All written by one person and person has only written these articles. The majority of links to the articles goto KMC MAG Reality Group, who happen to be the firm leasing the office space. Bgwhite (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, especially Picadilly Star, ArthaLand Tower and The Finance Centre, those are notable skyscrapers listed in Emporis website. I suggest improving the articles instead by citing some of these sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Will try to look for more. --RioHondo (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep ArthaLand Tower - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:, , , . NorthAmerica1000 09:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , all references come within the same week. They all use some of the same verbiage that came from the press release.  The building still hasn't started construction, even though refs said they would begin in July.  Wikipedia doesn't allow films an article until filming has started.  Books and music usually aren't mentioned until released.  Why have a building article, that hasn't started construction and the refs only come via a press conference?  Bgwhite (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Fort Bonifacio, no claim to notability, local coverage only. --Bejnar (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that the articles listed below the nomination are also nominated for deletion, not just ArthaLand Tower. NorthAmerica1000 09:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to clarify my redirect above, each one of these buildings does not have significant coverage for a standalone article, coverage yes, significant no, all local Manila. All together they could make a paragraph in the Fort Bonifacio article about the building boom in the mid 2010s. --Bejnar (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG includes local sources. Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:NPASR There is no argument for deletion here, as the nomination instead casts aspersions.  There is no sentiment for deletion here, and the nomination is confounded with both existing buildings and those that are "yet to be built", where a deletion argument for the latter should cite WP:NOT.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) WP:NPASR does not apply, as I have commented, and I am not the nominator. (2) The claim for deletion is the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources such that each of the six buildings fails to meet the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. As the guideline at WP:NGEOG indicates, Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. No claim of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance has been made.  LEED certification is not such a claim, nor is "technologically advanced" which claim pretty much equates to "new". Notwithstanding that the claim of "one of the most technologically advanced" is unsupported by an independent reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2014 (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.