Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP 07 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

EP 07 Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Also nominated: EP 09 Towers

Two articles on unbuilt buildings from the same development that have no clear evidence of notability. The first article cites only one useful source, which is a combination of a routine announcement and an interview, neither of which count. The second is wholly unsourced. My search for sources is not proving any more fruitful. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: EP 09 Towers is a former WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG for either building. Suonii180 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete both. Agree with the nominator re the article references. One for EP7 One Park Avenue is an interview with the architect extolling the Tower's virtues and is thus not independent. Thought there may be something about the energy efficiency concepts highlighted in the interview in independent sources but didn't find any. Significant coverage not found, so have to conclude both articles fail the GNG. Rupples (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2023 (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.