Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergyX DY-Building


 * 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__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

EnergyX DY-Building

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

This page was created in November 2023 during a brief flurry by a user whose only edits have been to corporations and projects within those corporations' works. Applied sources do not put this structure past the bar for WP:NBUILDING. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Korea. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NBUILDING. An UPE/agency construction, professionally shot.   scope_creep Talk  15:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Environment,  and South Korea.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep (see below): Notable coverage in the Korean language. . Side note, but several times a week an article with clear coverage in Korean gets nominated for deletion. I haven't seen anything, but is there anything in policy that asks that people search in the main language of the topic for notability before nominating? toobigtokale (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a frequent issue for articles with clear coverage in Japanese as well. From my knowledge, the applicable policy is WP:BEFORE B7 which asks nominators to "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek)". WP:GLOBAL and WP:NOENG are also applicable. There was also recently a deletion discussion for EnergyX which resulted in delete, seems like there may be enough coverage for notability with Korean sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just read the notice about potential paid editing. That's concerning. I think we could significantly cut down the article (the pic is definitely a copyvio anyway, south korea doesnt have freedom of panorama) as a compromise. toobigtokale (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Korean-language sources provided by toobigtokale. DCsansei (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment There's an incorrect assumption here the nominator didn't even look. Please assume good faith. I've been editing almost 19 years on English Wikipedia and have been an administrator for over four years. Before I nominate an article for deletion, I perform a reasonable BEFORE. I'll confess my inability to read Korean-language sources handicaps me greatly. That said, machine translations of the links already present and those User:Toobigtokale provided showed nothing approaching direct detailing on this project. I nominated this page because it was created by an apparent undeclared paid editor whose edits were almost entirely restricted to created pagespace related to Korean construction interests. The copyvio pic was uploaded by the page creator here. As an administrator, I see lots of promotional articles written on English Wikipedia about subjects in content and geographical areas where English sources are not available. I try to keep my unconscious bias in check, and often I fall short. But discussing THIS topic, on English Wikipedia, my analysis of sourcing so far is that it's composed entirely of routine business news with no direct detailing of the building itself. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to post machine translations on this process's talk page... BusterD (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for incorrectly assuming you didn't look. Didn't mean to cause offense. I hope you can sympathize with where my sentiment is coming from; 3-5 times a week I de-PROD or suggest keep on articles about Korea-related topics, and almost all of the time my suggestions are accepted. In my month or so of paying attention to article delete requests on WP:WikiProject Korea, I think around 60-70% I disagree with for coverage in Korean reasons.
 * Based on my reading of WP:NBUILD, it seems there's some wiggle room on interpreting degree of coverage for this building. I can understand concerns that the articles are not as in-depth as desired, and encourage others to weigh in. I did think the fact that it is a zero-energy building and energy-plus building was of some interest, but acknowledge sigcov takes priority. toobigtokale (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I acknowledge that this article being part of a concerning pattern of potential paid editing is not favorable to it being kept. Again, encourage others to weigh in. toobigtokale (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an aside and I'm not picking on this particular contributor. When I see obvious paid editing I want to inconvenience the editor as much as I reasonably can. I can do that best by taking their money away from them. I will prod and nominate and report and take any action which doesn't violate CIVIL in order to remove paid-space when I identify it as such. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly that makes sense and I didn't think about that; there needs to be stronger disincentivization towards paid editing. Otherwise they can/do scattershot and pray some parts of it will stick. I'm not really passionate about this topic and am happy to lean delete unless others have compelling arguments. toobigtokale (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2024 (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.