Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pride (skyscraper)


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Pride (skyscraper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relies on forum postings for primary references. unable to establish via google searches whether this refers to the "City Pride" building (which still only has a handful of mentions) or something else. It seems like having an article for a construction project that is still in the planning stages is somewhat ill-advised unless there are substantial RS about it. [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 09:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is linked from the List of tallest buildings and structures in London, providing more information than can be supplied on that page. Not all list entries have their own pages, but this building is of greater than average interest for being the tallest residential building approved for construction in London.  It has been viewed around 1200 times in the last 30 days. Paravane (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The references there include one news site of unknown reliability, and a posting on the skyscrapercity online forum. that forum is actually what prompted me to examine the article in the first place, since it is used frequently as though it were RS for tall buildings, or construction projects, despite it being a forum site, which in most cases precludes its use as RS.
 * Additionally, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that we need to delineate a set of guidelines for notability of large construction projects; treating them as though they were buildings creates a lot of difficulty that i think could be avoided. But that's another discussion for another noticeboard or talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 23:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two additional references added. Compare the articles for 432 Park Avenue in New York, or 29 South LaSalle in Chicago. Paravane (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The references added are primary sources. I would argue that the 432 Park Avenue article is at least notable because it has a WSJ article about it, while the 29 South LaSalle, as currently composed, is not. Primary sources do not, to me, connnote notability in and of themselves, though that may be a larger policy argument than can be made here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 22:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Added BBC article. Paravane (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Added references to CTBUH and Emporis. I can think of many improvements to wording and to remove the skyscrapercity reference, but should I wait until sfter this AfD is completed, or go ahead now? Astronaut (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is noteworthy that both CTBUH and Emporis, supposedly reliable sources, quote the AOD height of the building, without specifying it to be AOD - leading to the mistaken assumption that the figure of 233m, previously placed on this page after careful research, is wrong. A reliable source should make it clear, in this context, whether figures are AGL or AOD.  It is not necessarily helpful to create black-and-white categories of reliable and unreliable sources, and to depend on the former and dismiss the latter. Paravane (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Once it is built, if that ever happens, it will be relatively easy to find sources that give its height. At the moment it is still on paper, so its height is a fraction of a millimetre. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Fora building of this size, even the planning can be notable, as shown by the references, demonstrating it has been widely reported.  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- WP:CRYSTAL. When (if) it is built, it will probably be notable, but at the moment it seems merely to be some plans.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 17 August 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.