Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Residence (skyscraper)


 * 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   keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

King's Residence (skyscraper)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This is a profile of 京城King Park in Business Weekly (Taiwan) that is over 2,000 words long.    <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 「京城King Park」 to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung. A condensed summary of the building description can be added to the notes for its listing on that table. BD2412  T 20:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I oppose a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung because 「京城King Park」 has sufficient coverage (including the 2,000-word profile in Business Weekly (Taiwan) to establish notability and to support a standalone article. Notability says: "Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight." Covering 「京城King Park as part of a larger article (List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung) does not provide "more complete context that would be lost on a separate page", so I would prefer a standalone article over a merge to a lengthy list. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. There is enough to establish notability. VocalIndia (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep due to significant coverage. Remember to be careful when assessing 'significant coverage' for subjects primarily covered by non-Anglophone sources. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, appears to be notable per Cunard. Weak because I can't read the sources in their native language. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.