Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songdo First World


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Songdo First World

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails GNG per lack of RS [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Google News archive search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you identify which of these are WP:RS please? lots of promotional/pr here. thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 03:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll belatedly reply, in the hopes of moving this along: this article from London's Metro was the 4th link from the top. It's not hard to find, if one really wants to look. There's also a brief mention in a bylined story in the Upstart business journal, on page one of the news results, and on the web search side, there's this Archdaily item. Now, this next part is a little tricker but if one follws the interwiki link to the Korean wiki article on the international city, using your browser's translation function, one can find the Korean name for this tower complex and do a Google News archive search for that, which gives you these results. Clicking just on the very top results, This and this appear to be news articles from reliable sources, when viewed, once again, through your browser's translation function.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:52, 9 September 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.