- 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Kohinoor Square
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kohinoor Square ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Phew. I tried to salvage this advertisement for a botched scam-ridden Mumbai building, which is unfinished and whose only notability seems to be the fact that it is unfinished. I cannot find in-depth reliable sources that attest to its notability. The only news on it has been surrounding the financial irregularities of the project. Even after removing all the puffery in the article and balancing it with the controversy section, I have come to the conclusion that it does not at all meet Wiki's notability guidelines. Fails WP:GNG. (Also note the creator's problematic history of creating other puffed-up articles on proposed or non-notable buildings/architects like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gkkworks, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices) Best, MaysinFourty ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- PS and Delete from Nominator: Just like the creator's other very problematic articles, these poorly sourced articles on buildings and projects often just end up providing a veneer of legitimacy to the corrupt projects of real estate tycoons of the city, and, essentially, serve as proxy advertisements. MaysinFourty ( talk) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with MaysinFourty, this is likely to be advertisement of a group construction project that has failed. I am surprised to see Larsen and Toubro involved in this, their projects are usually successful. Fails WP:GNG. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- The L&T claim seems to me to be dubious as I can't find a reliable source for it, and the ref used doesn't work. Usually there's a press release that Larsen and Toubro puts out on their website. I smell fake news, but can't be sure...in any case, the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced that this doesn't belong on Wiki. MaysinFourty ( talk) 10:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, PR -- Devokewater @ 21:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, feels like the Kohinoor Square case might be notable for inclusion but then again the project without it wouldn't be. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't understand your comment. Are you saying that the alleged fraud case is notable, but the building is not? If so, we agree. This article is about the building that claimed to be notable, but which wasn't. The fact that it got mired in a controversy cannot now lend it renewed notability. For that, someone will have to create something like "Kohinoor land fraud" or somesuch article. This one, though, does not belong here in my opinion. Best,
MaysinFourty (
talk)
14:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is what I meant, was just wondering if there was a way to convert this article into one about the alleged fraud case. But there doesn't seem to be much that is salvageable so I'd go with delete as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't understand your comment. Are you saying that the alleged fraud case is notable, but the building is not? If so, we agree. This article is about the building that claimed to be notable, but which wasn't. The fact that it got mired in a controversy cannot now lend it renewed notability. For that, someone will have to create something like "Kohinoor land fraud" or somesuch article. This one, though, does not belong here in my opinion. Best,
MaysinFourty (
talk)
14:33, 16 August 2020 (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.
- 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Kohinoor Square
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kohinoor Square ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Phew. I tried to salvage this advertisement for a botched scam-ridden Mumbai building, which is unfinished and whose only notability seems to be the fact that it is unfinished. I cannot find in-depth reliable sources that attest to its notability. The only news on it has been surrounding the financial irregularities of the project. Even after removing all the puffery in the article and balancing it with the controversy section, I have come to the conclusion that it does not at all meet Wiki's notability guidelines. Fails WP:GNG. (Also note the creator's problematic history of creating other puffed-up articles on proposed or non-notable buildings/architects like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gkkworks, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices) Best, MaysinFourty ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- PS and Delete from Nominator: Just like the creator's other very problematic articles, these poorly sourced articles on buildings and projects often just end up providing a veneer of legitimacy to the corrupt projects of real estate tycoons of the city, and, essentially, serve as proxy advertisements. MaysinFourty ( talk) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with MaysinFourty, this is likely to be advertisement of a group construction project that has failed. I am surprised to see Larsen and Toubro involved in this, their projects are usually successful. Fails WP:GNG. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- The L&T claim seems to me to be dubious as I can't find a reliable source for it, and the ref used doesn't work. Usually there's a press release that Larsen and Toubro puts out on their website. I smell fake news, but can't be sure...in any case, the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced that this doesn't belong on Wiki. MaysinFourty ( talk) 10:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, PR -- Devokewater @ 21:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, feels like the Kohinoor Square case might be notable for inclusion but then again the project without it wouldn't be. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't understand your comment. Are you saying that the alleged fraud case is notable, but the building is not? If so, we agree. This article is about the building that claimed to be notable, but which wasn't. The fact that it got mired in a controversy cannot now lend it renewed notability. For that, someone will have to create something like "Kohinoor land fraud" or somesuch article. This one, though, does not belong here in my opinion. Best,
MaysinFourty (
talk)
14:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is what I meant, was just wondering if there was a way to convert this article into one about the alleged fraud case. But there doesn't seem to be much that is salvageable so I'd go with delete as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't understand your comment. Are you saying that the alleged fraud case is notable, but the building is not? If so, we agree. This article is about the building that claimed to be notable, but which wasn't. The fact that it got mired in a controversy cannot now lend it renewed notability. For that, someone will have to create something like "Kohinoor land fraud" or somesuch article. This one, though, does not belong here in my opinion. Best,
MaysinFourty (
talk)
14:33, 16 August 2020 (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.