Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmopolitan Twarda 2/4


 * 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. Consensus here is that references exist, enough to qualify more than routine coverage, but they need to be added to the article. (non-admin closure) Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan Twarda 2/4

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable building, not yet complete Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When completed, it will be 9th tallest building in Poland measuring height to the highest point of building, 5th measuring height to the roof, and 3rd highest residential building in Poland (2nd in Warsaw). Piotrek91 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of which is mentioned in the article, and none of which is backed up by references. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Height of 160m is backed up by references. I don't think it's good idea to list all positions in various rankings in article, for such purpose we have List of tallest buildings in Poland. I've mentioned them to prove that it is not some random building. Piotrek91 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think this would fail GNG, even though such facts are interesting. Notability is established by having someone in WP:RS talk about it Gaijin42 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's hard to find such info in english resources, in polish it won't be a problem. ctbuh.org, emporis.com, Warsaw Business Jorunal, Warsaw Business Journal. And in polish it' really more, for example: warszawa.gazeta.pl, tvnwarszawa.pl - two biggest info news sites for Warsaw, belonging to biggest polish media companies Agora SA and TVN. Piotrek91 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep. I think skyscrapers, planned or not, are notable, and Piotrek shows there are sources. But please, add those sources, preferably as inline references, to the article itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I promise I'll improve this article, but it may take some time as I' quite busy at least till Wednesday Piotrek91 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, article clearly needs a bit of work, but it's a major construction project mentioned in enough sources to make it notable.--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Article was nominated for deletion a remarkable eight minutes after it was created. I recommend the nominator read WP:DEMOLISH. In the meantime, the article has been expanded and sourced and I think the tower's notability has been established. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I see nothing but strictly routine coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage of this topic is in-depth (also found this) and does appear to pass our guidelines. Major construction project.  WP:ROUTINE, which is actually part of WP:EVENT of which this topic is not one, refers to "sporting events" and "announcements."  The coverage demonstrated here aren't anything like that. --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2011 (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.