Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora tower

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep/clean up. Joyous 03:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Aurora tower
Copyvio. Might be slightly notable but probably not worth listing on cleanup for months on end. Neutralitytalk 01:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused... If it's a copyvio, shouldn't it be listed at Copyright problems instead of here? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Coyvio? Then list as such.  Otherwise seems to be an excellent subject and a reasonable (if slightly breathless) article. Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wasn't able to find the copyvio with several google searches (whether the spelling was corrected or not). I've replaced the VfD tag, which the original anon author had removed, though.  No vote from me. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:37, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potential copyvios belong on Copyright problems. Don't attempt to rewrite policy on your own. 119 07:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is notable. Text is rubbish, but so is that for Southbank Parklands as well. I'm going to be starting up a WikiProject for Brisbane, and will make cleanup of these articles a priority. Lacrimosus 08:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; send to clean-up. Should never have come here. Dan100 15:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Absolutely no valid reason for deletion given. Dr Zen 01:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.