Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gedempte Zalmhaven


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Gedempte Zalmhaven

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails GNG, no RS. (also WP:TOOSOON) [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I notice the linked article on the Dutch Wikipedia was deleted recently as a promotional-sounding article on an unrealised project: . A project could be unrealised and yet notable, but all we have here is sourced to Skyscrapercity.com which doesn't look like a WP:RS. And when completed, it will be an apartment block; the only claim to notability would be perhaps if it was at that point indeed the tallest building in the Netherlands. Until then this looks WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this article via its sourcing, actually. There is an RfC about that particular source that I opened specifically to confirm/deny its reliability because it does appear to be widely used for building projects, especially unfinished or planned ones, despite being a forum site. While not closed yet, the clear (though not unanimous) consensus there appears to be that it is not reliable. just fyi. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 08:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google News archive search seems to suggest we already have multiple stories on the structure in publications. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you identify which of these are WP:RS please? lots of promotional/pr here. thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 03:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm not going to expand on this, here, on other Afds, nor on my Talk page: I've looked through the results and am satisfied that there are sufficient WP:RS among the results, and I encourage editors to see for themselves. The consensus shall decide, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * interested in posting a simple google link, but not interested in providing even a single concrete examples of WP:RS from that link. I see. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 07:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't allow myself to respond to this sort of goading but all right, here's one. It's right in front of you: http://www.deweekkrant.nl/artikel/2010/maart/01/verzet_tegen_zalmhaven_urban_ Use Google Translate. It's an article about opposition to the construction of the project, from the Dé Weekkrant publication. There's more articles on that page. Look at them, for heaven's sake. And please don't post anything else to my talk page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance, and thanks for self-reverting your initial not-so-civil responses. Perhaps you could also post RS links for the other AfDs where you simply posted a google news link for, expecting that things were obvious? thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 17:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you gone taken a look for yourself? You realize that WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE are important guidelines for nominators, I hope? Did you do a Google News Archive search before nominating, including for foreign language news sources, and have you looked through the Gnews search results I'd linked to above, to see for yourself? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, the project does seem to be notable. As far as I can tell, unbuilt projects may be just as notable as built one, because the key public discussion is usually whether or not to build it in the first place.  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 16 September 2013 (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.