Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MECON Tower


 * 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   merge to MECON Limited.  MBisanz  talk 00:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

MECON Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article do not meet WP:NOTABLE criteria. Do not have wide usage in RS. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I could find only a passing mention in a newspaper about the tower. Looks like non-notable. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  20:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Merge into MECON Limited. It shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but merging it into the MECON Limited article, with a cite request tag, would give someone who speaks the language time find an srticle a news article about the building being owned by current and former employees.  If true, that's a notable fact.  And given that that there IS a Mecon Limited page, that gives us a place to put this while the references are looked for, without leaving an out-of-policy, free-standing article out there to be mirrored and to become a faux fact. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge, unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom and above. Blue   Riband►   00:09, 7 January 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.