Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wongamat Tower


 * 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. The argument that we should give a creation by a new editor more leeway is weak to begin with, but is rendered entirely moot when said editor is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Setting those arguments aside altogether, there's substantial concrens about whether substantial independent coverage exists, which have not been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wongamat Tower

 * – ( View AfD View log )

NCORP WP:NBUILDING fail. The sources appear to be all either promotional placements, press release churn or just plain low quality. This AfD also includes the subsidiary page Zire Wongamat Tower A. --- Possibly &#9742; 06:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   --- Possibly &#9742; 06:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.   --- Possibly &#9742; 06:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:NBUILDING, not NCORP, is the applicable criteria here. Curbon7 (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks. The same problems apply: the sourcing is poor. --- Possibly &#9742; 09:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: I've adjusted the listing to make clearer the nominated articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both - Promotional article that appears to be an effort by the developer, designer and/or real estate group to use WP as a venue for advertisment. The citations consist of placements within "news sources" or a press-release type material. Does not pass WP:NBUILD Netherzone (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both - promotional articles, do not meet WP:NBUILDING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Zire Wongamat (and it should definitely be renamed and rewritten, if kept, to cover the entire complex, not just one of its buildings) is a major development by real estate developer Raimon Land, and updates on its construction were reported by the Pattaya Mail, Manager Online and real-estate website Think of Living, though as is usual with business coverage, most of the information is based on press releases. Wongamat Tower has similar coverage in Manager, and is covered in three paragraphs in this real estate article in Krungthep Turakij. It's also been featured in a review by real estate website Asean Living. (Such condominium review websites are a thing in Thailand. Think of Living is probably the best known one, but hasn't done reviews on either property.) --Paul_012 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The accusation by deletion nominator in the first "Delete both" !vote above that this page was developed as promotion by/for the developers is utter rubbish.  The article, before being reduced significantly by the deletion nominator after nominating, was substantial and was a decent job by a new editor to cover a significant topic.  Deletions of material by a deletion nominator should not be done, in general, because it obscures the size and content from AFD reviewers who might simply refine some wording and develop it all better, as could be done here.  And such deletion tends to be self-serving for a deletion nominator to run up their score:  I don't know if it is the case here, but a deletion nominator can strip articles down to where they are inadequate, simply to "win" the deletion battle.  Even if that is not the motive, it appears can appear that way.  The Wikipedia author is User:Meow2021 who states on their Talk page: "I'm a new user on Wikipedia trying to create and organize content for architecture, development projects, and the Pattaya area even when it seems difficult to find appropriate information and links. Any help on these topics is appreciated."  Which is fine and good.  The article should be restored to this version before it was tagged and nominated for deletion and shredded down, and then refined.  Yes, it had sort of promotional-type wording and I would drop the list of amenities for residents for example, but obviously this is NOT what a developer or a real estate marketer would write, or would want written, into Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing an "accusation by deletion nominator that this page was developed as promotion by/for the developers"? I did not say anything like that in the nom. There is a separate discussion at COIN where things like that have been said, leading to the editor Meow2021 being blocked. However above, in the article nomination, there is no such claim.  --- Possibly &#9742; 02:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was inaccurate in my statement, and I seemed to have conflated assertions from the first "Delete both" !voter into my [mis]understanding of what was included in the nomination. I am not very active in Wikipedia these days, and I wrote out my view kind of quickly informed by past experience more than the exact facts of the present situation, and I am not really very involved or familiar with any of the editors here.  I just struck out some of what i wrote and put in some other wording above.  Please accept this as an apology for not being completely accurate myself.  And maybe I am further wrong in other respects. --Doncram (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I really respect you but I'm surprised that you now think my contribution is "utter rubbish" because I believe this article is a promotional effort. I do, and am not alone in this thought; there is evidence about this on COIN. I take my work at AfD quite seriously and don't participate in a cavalier manner. The article creator has been indeff'd. It's also unlikely they are a newbie. Netherzone (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm also wholly confused by your comment about stripping relevant material from the article. I think may have just looked at the edit summaries and not the actual edits, which consisted of removing the  following material. Please let me know which part of this is important:
 * I guess I could have kept the three sentences that begin with "The originally proposed design for the Wongamat Tower is based on a steel frame structure...", but the single source they were tied to did not mention the Towers or Kleff. In fact, none of the trimmed sources did. They were all generic engineering text sources. I'm not really seeing anything above that is more than irrelevant filler. Thanks. --- Possibly &#9742; 02:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . In my opinion the removal of that promotional text is appropriate and completely separate to this AfD discussion. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . In my opinion the removal of that promotional text is appropriate and completely separate to this AfD discussion. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I tend to believe there should be one article on the entire complex, not two (or more?) articles about separate towers, but this is clearly a significant development, of the type which changes gravitational forces in the area and changes the earth's spin measurably. Seriously. And there are sources, which, yes, could be improved.  It is far better for Wikipedia to Keep this article and encourage more development by the new editor, than to destroy and delete everything they have contributed.  And their contributions are done pretty well.  The deletion nominator and others could perhaps make a negative tag or two, and they could/should make suggestions at Talk pages, but deletion is not the way forward. --Doncram (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not a significant development. It is your typical residential tower, in the typical height range for residential condo's that are built in the 10's of thousands all over China, Europe and America. Its a cheap residential block. It fails WP:NBUILD as there no in-depth, independent coverage that indicates that it is unique or is architecturally important and the routine coverage confirms that. There is nnothing particularly attractive about the building, either.   scope_creep Talk  09:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither is a "cheap residential block"; they're luxury properties. Zire Wongamat won a prize at the 2016 Asia Pacific Property Awards, but it seems to be an industry thing and probably doesn't mean much in terms of real-world significance. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , luxury is not equivalent to notability. Netherzone (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said it is. Was just pointing out a minor inaccuracy in the preceding argument. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because it is a new editor, Wikipedia policies must be suspended, particularly those around WP:NCORP, WP:PROMO and WP:COI? No. The editor who created this, created 22 articles in 29 days and the majority of the articles were highly promotional, that read like an advertising brochures, to such an extent that the editor was repoted to COIN, particlarly since most of them were related in some way to Mario Kleff who is entirely non-notable and whose article is at Afd as well. The sources that were used came from clickbait and PR sites, supposedly some in the public domain, resulted in exactly what the PR people were looking for. In a referenced source offered to the Mario Kleff afd, it states about development  in Pattya,
 * Higher faster further. In Pattaya, the condominium boom seems unbroken. New residential towers are being built out of the ground in record time. Indeed, the tourist metropolis has ?? based on the number of projects under construction and planned ?? about one of the fastest growing skylines in the world....
 * So I don't see this development being being particularly significant. It is one of dozens in Pattaya.   scope_creep Talk  16:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not 100% convinced that this is a new editor. Netherzone (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do find it odd. I'm not conviced either. 10 years ago such a move would be done openly by a PR agency. Now it is cloaked in the veneer of legitimate work.   scope_creep Talk  07:47, 19 August 2021 (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.