Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Pool, Houston


 * 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. The delete !votes are far from policy-based. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  09:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sky Pool, Houston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet WP:GNG. Daily mail is not a reliable source. No discussion in detail found anywhere. WP:NOTEVERYTHING probably applies too. It's a swimming pool. A unique one, granted, but lacking any awards, being unique does not equate to notability. John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd actually heard of this thing and much more importantly, a Gnews search for "Sky Pool" + Houston yields decent enough results, well beyond the references currently on the article. It meets GNG and needs improvement, not deletion, from what I can see. I've added two categories. The article should be moved to Sky Pool, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete issa pool. Why would WP have an article about a pool? Should there be an article about other pools? When will the pools end? This pooling needs to stop before it overflows. Guys, it's a POOL. Who would look up a pool in an encyclopedia? I don't care if Captain John Paul Jones took a voyage in the pool, it's a pool and is not notable. It CANNOT be notable. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  14:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that a pool cannot be notable, even if it meets GNG, is utter nonsense -- and not policy-based. Indeed, you seem more interested in making puns and being flip than advancing any such argument. It's a glass-bottomed pool 40 storeys in the air that appears to be a bona fide notable tourist attraction. I won't badger but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Category:Swimming pools is replete with a number of other notable individual pools. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP would and does have articles about pools for many reasons including receiving significant coverage and being of historic value. Jesus Green Swimming Pool, Dalby Olympic Swimming Pool and Kennedy Town Swimming Pool are examples.  As far as we know John Paul Jones didn't take a voyage in any of them.  Not liking articles on certain topics isn't a valid reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. It easily satisfies WP:GNG. However, it shouldn't be moved to Sky Pool, as a much more outrageous one has been announced for construction in London and there's another a mere 40 feet above the ground in Italy. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * keep My friend who says shall we create article about all pools should listen there are about 7.6 billion people in world. Shall we create article about every person? No. We shall create article about notable people. Likewise we shall not create article about every pool. We shall create article about just notable things and this pool is notable. I have not based my article on daily mail, I have based my article on a newspaper and a friend has also introduced links to Gnews in this discussion. Links to Daily mail were so that it can be verified easily, but even we exclude references to Daily mail, the newspaper is enough to verify my claims. Complete information of newspaper is present in first reference of this article. I am finding information about its construction, finance, planning, and visitors. Now It is a scratch of article. A good article is going to be drawn from this scratch. Do not consider its deletion, focus on improving this article. If it is small, declare it a stub and it will be changed to a good article by dear fellow wikipedians and me.

Sinner (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be plenty of coverage, all dating from the pool's opening in April. I wonder whether this will prove to be an architectural variant of WP:SINGLEEVENT, though I suppose it will likely get coverage in tourist guides, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We cannot wait till it is included in some tourist guide. If current references are of single 22 April event, Read 11 July newspaper Roznama 92 news to get  other references which are not about its opening so WP:SINGLEVENT will NOT apply to this article. Sinner (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me much of the coverage is along the lines of coverage of the coverage. It's doubtful this will be included in tourist guides (which would be directory type coverage anyway), as it is a private pool in an apartment building and not any sort of public attraction. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Being in private apartment does not mean it is not notable while wikipedia already has a handful of articles about such pools. Wikipedia is not to discriminate between private and national architecture. The pool is already a popular tourist attraction site to confirm read Urdu newspaper 92 of July 11,2017 published from Lahore page 10. Sinner (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage from multiple sources, internationally no less.--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The significant coverage easily establishes notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, wow, what has Wikipedia deteriorated into. It is a pool. I mean, if this type of stuff keeps up, Wikipedia is going to be a dump pretty soon.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 04:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained above, pools can be notable. Besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is there any opinion based on notability guidelines?  Speedy is out of the question at this point. --Oakshade (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The rationale in the !vote above does not correspond with any of the WP:CSD criteria for speedy deletion. North America1000 04:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinions with me.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 05:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a source review. No prejudice against a merge to Market Square Tower. North America1000 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is itself very notable and can stand as independent article. Sinner (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (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.