Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai)


 * 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. W.marsh 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally speedied, but undeleted on request at DRV, followed by numerous requests to overturn the speedy. Thus it is a job for AfD. Please consider the comments already made there. Splash - tk 13:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Splash linked to the revision of the log page which has only the closed DRV discussion. Here's a link to the revision before that where the DRV discussion can be read.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there's a larger issue that needs to be grappled with here. There are a number of articles with titles along the lines of "Tallest buildings in City X".  Take a look at List of tallest buildings in Dubai, for example.  Now, the only thing notable about this building is that it is on the list of tallest buildings in Dubai Yes, there is a standard cutoff established by WikiProject Skyscrapers.  However, it now seems that there are a boatload of articles on skyscrapers which may not have any more claim to notability than their height.  There are apparently nearly 900 articles on skyscrapers.  I know that this argument falls into the What about article x? category of WP:AADD.  Nonetheless, there's not much point in deleting just this article and letting the others remain.  If we feel that articles of this type should not be on Wikipedia, then let's nominate the whole lot of them and establish a notability guideline for buildings.  Until then, I guess we have to Keep this article. --Richard 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In summary, correct me if I'm wrong, but your saying because other articles exist this one should as well. And you know this is an argument to be avoided in AfDs as well. This AfD is about this building article and not others. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes...here's the thing. If you consult WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists, you will find that there is a guideline for how tall a building should be in order to be included in a list.
 * The data cutoff point should be between 150 ft and 250 ft for cities with small skylines. Examples include Providence, RI, Bellevue, WA, and Oakland, CA. For cities with medium skylines, the cutoff point should be 300 ft. Cities with fairly large skylines should use the 400 ft cutoff point. Examples include San Francisco, CA, Miami, FL, Seattle, WA and Los Angeles, CA. For cities that have extremely broad, expansive skylines, the cutoff point should be 500 ft (the lower limit of a skyscraper). Examples include Chicago, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and New York City.
 * The building in question is 166 m (545 ft) which is appropriate for a city with a small skyline but not for one with a medium skyline. Where would you classify Dubai?
 * Anyway, the point is that there seems to be a tendency to create an article for every building that makes it onto one of the "tallest buildings" lists. That's the overarching question that needs to be addressed: should we have an article for every building that is on a "tallest building" list?  If so, then this article is an obvious "keep".  If not, what are the "notability" criteria for a building?  A listing in Emporis?
 * My recommendation is "Keep this article but move the debate over to WikiProject Skyscrapers or WT:N.
 * --Richard 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dubai would be classified as a large skyline, and actually since this building is over 500 ft, it would be appropriate for such a city with a large skyline. This notability discussion has been brought up before at WT:N, but with inconclusive results. The discussion could be brought up at WP:SKYSCRAPERS; however, so far the general consensus for the project has been to create buildings for every page needed for a list to become featured. Rai - me  22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability criterion for buildings is at WP:N. Let's not have yet more guidelines totally removed from the question of sourcing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and set up a notability guideline for buildings, per discussion at DRV. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that there may a problem in the system with regards to featured lists however, a red-linked article on the List of tallest buildings in Dubai article's quest to being featured seems to be a discussion for another venue and not here where we are talking about a specific article. Basic notability is the basis on which articles are judged upon. Just because another article exists doesn't mean this one should. SkyScraperpage.com seems like another Emporis-like page. A listing/directory. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Notability is not the only basis to judge articles. There are articles like Welland estate (check history) that are notable (in that case, a notorious murder), but the same article was written in a manner that was severely detracted from its quality. This particular article for deletion is reasonably well-written, is informative and it asserts its notability clearly. Cheers.
 * Disagree, there are more components to SkyscraperPage than the diagrams. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, wouldn't tallest buildings lists be unencyclopedic if SkyscraperPage and Emporis were directories? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sometimes we need to keep articles with factual information for the context they appear in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and establish a notability guideline for buildings and structures per Richard and Hydrogen Iodide. per discussion at DRV. Rai - me  18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - 28th tallest building in the city is not very notable. Kind of a slippery slope here, kind of lets the door open to 75th, 76th, etc. tallest building articles. The claim to be being one of the tallest hotel-only buildings is ambiguous as well. What about the other tallest hotel-only buildings in between this one and the Burj Al Arab, which claims that it is the tallest building to be used exclusively as a hotel. Luke! 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The building is the 4th-tallest all-hotel building (excluding the not yet opened Rose Tower) in a city with 286 high-rise buildings and another 327 under construction. To me, that is a valid claim of notability. And, as Hydrogen Iodide stated on the DRV, it will be very unlikely that the 76th-tallest building in a city will have an article, as most lists only go down to the 30th or 40th tallest. Rai - me  21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see this. This limits the amount of building articles that are created. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that you have to add two qualifiers (not just hotel but all hotel), and even then it's not actually the tallest, is too much of a stretch. It reminds me too much of the Ballad of Irving. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A claim of notability is a claim, even though it includes qualifiers. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the claim of being all-hotel may even be more notable than being only a hotel tower. It is becoming increasingly rare for very tall buildings to be constructed as solely hotel properties; most contain some (or contain mostly) residential units along with a hotel. The fact that this 160 m+ building is being used exclusively as a hotel, and is one of tallest such buildings in the city, is notable. Rai - me  02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Eusebeus 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard.Huang7776 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, whether or not "28th-tallest" is a viable assertion of notability, assertion of notability is not enough at AfD. Here, actual notability must be demonstrated, by showing that significant quantities of reliable, independent material exist, upon which an article can be based. I can't find any significant amount of sourcing about either the building or the business, and no more has been provided at this discussion or in the article. I can of course be persuaded to change my mind upon a showing that substantial sourcing is available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As Hydrogen Iodide has stated below, several sources and a History section have been added to the article. Rai - me  01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Given your comment, I did review the sources, but I still don't see it. One is a press release, which is not reliable or independent, and the rest really don't provide substantial information (some are only a list of statistics, the rest provide very little). I just don't see that an article is needed here, the few factoids available could easily be included on a list. There's simply not enough material available that a full article could ever be written. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As an aside to the above, if a featuring process is requiring the creation of articles on non-notable subjects, that process needs changing, but that has zero bearing on whether any such article should be kept or deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we've always considered very large buildings notable. Dubai is now famous for its buildings, and many of them will be individually notable There would probably be sufficient information in local sources, and sourceability not source sis all that is necessary. There are many classes of things we assume to be notable -- there is perhaps a conflict with the general two-RS criterion, but the conclusion is that the rules in fact do conflict, and in practice we decide on a reasonable basis. There have been long discussions ever since I came here on which takes priority, and i have sen a complete absence of agreement. The attempts to unify the rules were in fact all rejected,  as no one found an acceptable way to harmonize them that satisfied a consensus. Seraphimblade gives his opinion on how they conflict should be treated. As for me, i don;t have an answer, but i do not think WP generally has accepted his. (At the very least we have certainly rejected that twoRS in every instance proves notability--see the discussions on BLP, for example--not that i want to get into that point here.) . DGG (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for clarification, I don't agree with any "two-source" rule myself, nor did my comment anywhere mention two sources. Two trivial or name-drop mentions are not good enough, while in some cases one highly-comprehensive source may be. The question to ask is "Could we ever write a substantial, comprehensive article on this subject using only material drawn from independent, reliable sources?" To me, the answer here appears to be "no", and lacking that it's just a directory entry. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being the "28th-tallest" building in a particular city is nowhere near notable.  If there were evidence that the building was notable for something else, height might be a contributing factor but it is not, in my opinion, sufficient to support a stand-alone article.  As Seraphimblade says above, there are no significant sources that do anything beyond confirming the existance of the building.  Wikipedia is not a directory - we do not include everything that exists just because we can show that it exists.  Rossami (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, article has been expanded with a history section and more sources. cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but in my opinion the added content is travel-log trivia. I still don't see a sustainable encyclopedia article here.  Rossami (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how that history section is unencyclopedic, as I don't see how it's trivia. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please explain how the addition is trivia. The new section is well-referenced with websites that go beyond confirming the existence/statistics of the building, and provides information on the development of the building over three years. How is this trivia? Rai - me  05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the truth of the additions, merely arguing that the details of the building's construction do not constitute history in my opinion. That is the sort of detail that you'd see in a trade journal or travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article.  Rossami (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing is adequate and the article meets our content policies. I have difficulty picturing the reader who encounters this article and wishes they hadn't. Given that I don't understand how deleting it would improve Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2007 (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.