Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leonardo (Sandton)


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The Leonardo (Sandton)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Clear example of WP:CRYSTAL, as you can see from the image as well. The building claims it will be the largest in SA, however it hasn't even begun construction plus it's only covered in two minor sources which do not attest its notability given they're mere speculation. The price of the penthouse seems to be the main focus of those two references, however it is an "expected" price, so again I invoke WP:CRYSTAL. I also suggest salting per this. See also Acsiopolis (same developer trying to push an agenda). FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  11:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Promotional and lacks notability. My searches do not reveal enough coverage to meet GNG. The article appears to exist as a WP:PROMO to attract potential buyers; even expected prices are listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, reliable, third party sources such as Business Day Live and Financial Mail have been cited; thus noteworthiness is clear. The article simply provides facts which are backed up with citations so I don't see how the page is "promotional" in nature. --Nazeer (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're aware of what Wikipedia considers "noteworthy". Our most central guideline is the general notability guideline, which this simply does not pass. Two mentions about a future construction do not constitute extensive coverage. This does not preclude the possibility of having an article about the building once it's built and it's garnered substantial coverage in the future. As it stands now, we're not even certain it even will get built. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  02:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:46, 1 September 2016 (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.