Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbour Centre (Hong Kong)


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Harbour Centre (Hong Kong)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant claim of notability, no references indicating coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill office building. RadioFan (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How is containing the Consulate Generals and Consulates of Australia, the Czech Republic and consulate and Monaco not a claim of notability? --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - non-notable building that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Leasing office space to non-notable consulates doesn't make the building notable. Leasing parts of the building to notable consulates wouldn't necessarily make the building notable. Stalwart 111  04:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What countries consulates do you deem notable and what do you base your criteria of what countries are notable? --Oakshade (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those that meet WP:GNG, not for the relationship between the two countries but in their own right. The consulate of a tiny country could be notable if the Consul has been particularly active and has gained significant coverage in reliable sources for the consulate's activities. But in general, most consulates haven't been considered individually notable but some embassies are and relationships ("X - Y relations") between countries with a verifiable diplomatic history are more often than not considered notable. Even if the consulates themselves were notable, that would make the consulates notable, not the building they are in. If they are notable then we should have articles for the consulates themselves, not the building where they happen to be located. In some cases, it is the historically notable building that is notable and not the current tenant (be it a consulate, embassy or corporation). In this instance I can't see either the building or its tenants being notable. Stalwart 111  05:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:GNG. Consulates are rarely notable by WP standards so having them as tenants doesn't add to notability here. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2014 (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.