Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBS Towers (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

HBS Towers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am shocked that an encyclopaedia has hosted such a page for so long...This is essentially an ad for HBS Towers/Realtors. The project has not even got off the ground, in fact it may even have been shelved as I can’t find any reliable sources. "Ad" and "predictions" tags have remain unaddressed for a couple of years. The one dubious reference provided does not work. In 2018, someone added “This project is currently stopped as builder said he has no funds. He has also stopped paying rents as well to the members and no progress on redevelopment”. Most importantly, the article has been edited (or more accurately, padded) many times by someone at HBS Group, starting here, after a failed deletion request. A blatant case of WP:COI, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. I bumped into it through Category:Postmodern architecture in India, which has a few other articles written like ads or to give a veneer of credibility for stalled/failed projects (see Growel's 101, Kohinoor Square, The Imperial 3). I was less sure about those and if anyone else wants to look deeper, please do so. But this one, here, needs to go! The chaff of Wikipedia... MaysinFourty (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. As noted in the amends and tags I'd applied to this promotional guff over the last few years, this article seems to stand only as an example of why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERT guidelines. Frankly I think we need to have a broader look at our WP:NBUILDING guidelines. As this project is (in my view) cluttered up with a lot of out-dated information on proposed building projects. Many of these fall between the cracks of WP:SIGCOV. Where, probably because newspapers are reliant on advertising revenue from property developers and the like, we often find a reasonable level of coverage of these planned/proposed development projects in what are otherwise independent and reliable sources. But, in reality, the subject might never even be afforded planning permission. And hence barely even exists "in potentia". Not to mention ever existing in reality. In my view, WP:TOOSOON should probably be applied (in extremis) to these types of subjects. And, even if there does seem to be some coverage of the planned project to the extent that newspapers are republishing the developer's plans and press-releases, we shouldn't necessarily be doing the same. In this case, the article should just be deleted. This project is not improved by hosting an out-of-date press release for a property developer's proposal/daydream. Guliolopez (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with your points! What's bizarre is that this project allegedly won the "World’s Best Residential Renovation/Redevelopment Project" even before a single brick was laid.. MaysinFourty (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete At least per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2020 (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.