Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rönesans Rezidans


 * 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. A possible rename can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Rönesans Rezidans

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable apartment complex. Notability is not inherited from the notable people who were tragically buried under the rubble. Sources mostly cover it in the context of the earthquake, the arrest of its contractor, or the notable people who are missing or who were found dead in the rubble (such as Christian Atsu). There is very little coverage of the complex before the earthquake. The fact that there is no article on the Turkish Wikipedia is telling. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Turkey.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete No independent notability Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The building itself is not notable, and known only for being part of a notable earthquake that affected notable people. Most of this article and its sources aren't really about the building itself, but the people in there or general information about the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake and its aftermath. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the points made above. Nothing notable about the building. The fraudulent circumstances the building pertains to or its collapse aren't unique, too. I believe if we crop the details about the building and rewrite some parts to be more concise, we can easily end up with a sentence or two about its collapse and what it means, to be included in the article of the earthquake. Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What fraudulent circumstances? Gazozlu (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that the building itself isn't notable, it has been covered exceptionally well in Turkish media and academics following its collapse. Most of this can't be added to the main article. Is a revamp and move to something like Collapse of Rönesans Rezidans or Collapse of Rönesans Rezidans during the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake possible? ~Styyx Talk ? 10:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NBUILDING, "Buildings (...) may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."
 * The building has been touted, also by international media,  as having greater significance by being a symbol for the failure of developers to follow earthquake protection building standards, and has been covered as the primary topic of several articles as such. Also, the article concerns not just a building but also a disaster by itself with hundreds of death, such events are generally considered notable. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: It was already somewhat notable before the earthquake as the first building of its kind in Hatay, and is very notable now after the earthquake during which it affected the lives of almost 1000 people of which many have unfortunately become casualties. Meets significant coverage.--Gazozlu (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep and possibly rename. The collapse of the building clearly exceeds the bar of the general notability guideline. It has been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage across reliable sources, which is now available in the article. Indeed it is the focus of ongoing coverage in international media, see this recent piece by Financial Times. Yes it happened within the context of the catastrophic earthquake, but that does not change how we are to apply the notability guidelines, nor does it diminish the fact that the collapse of this specific building has become something of a cause celebre, receiving coverage that sets it apart from the thousands of other collapsed buildings in the region (bar a select few). Clearly due to the high-profile nature of this, this coverage will continue with the ongoing judicial process. Yes, the article needs some cleanup and possibly a rename to reflect that it is the collapse of the building rather than the building in and of itself that is notable, but that is not the focus of discussion during the AfD. Please note that I am not arguing that the notability of the collapse is inherited from its residents, it's just that the means through which this particular building has received more coverage is irrelevant to the fact that it passes the GNG. --GGT (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (and possibly rename to Collapse of ...) There has been lots of ongoing coverage beyond a 24-hour news cycle, and it has been deep and multiple kinds of coverage. I started the copy-editing, but it needs quite a bit more. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2023 (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.