- 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. The article can be redirected or merged at editorial discretion. Mz7 ( talk) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Portakal Çiçeği Tower
- Portakal Çiçeği Tower ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A very short article with no sources; I doubt this claim passes WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 04:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, tentatively. Because there should exist coverage in Turkish and/or English, because it is a very tall building, and per List of tallest buildings in Ankara it is the tallest building in Ankara, although the article itself says it is the third tallest. -- do ncr am 04:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note, at worst this should be merged or redirected to its row in List of tallest buildings in Ankara; it should not be outright deleted. -- do ncr am 04:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, can this AFD be closed "Speedy Keep", because there is no valid deletion rationale in the nomination. There is no assertion that wp:BEFORE has been attempted. Articles are not required to include sources, in fact. "I doubt this passes GNG" is not something worth others' time and effort to address, IMHO. -- do ncr am 04:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge per Doncram. I researched a bit and there is some coverage about the building [1] [2], [3] which confirms the little data we have in the article, and it must have gained some attention being so tall and modern. Not speaking Turkish, it's hard for me to assess reliability and depth of this coverage, but then the nominator didn't seem to either. No such user ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2017 (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 keep. The article can be redirected or merged at editorial discretion. Mz7 ( talk) 03:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Portakal Çiçeği Tower
- Portakal Çiçeği Tower ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A very short article with no sources; I doubt this claim passes WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 04:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, tentatively. Because there should exist coverage in Turkish and/or English, because it is a very tall building, and per List of tallest buildings in Ankara it is the tallest building in Ankara, although the article itself says it is the third tallest. -- do ncr am 04:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note, at worst this should be merged or redirected to its row in List of tallest buildings in Ankara; it should not be outright deleted. -- do ncr am 04:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, can this AFD be closed "Speedy Keep", because there is no valid deletion rationale in the nomination. There is no assertion that wp:BEFORE has been attempted. Articles are not required to include sources, in fact. "I doubt this passes GNG" is not something worth others' time and effort to address, IMHO. -- do ncr am 04:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge per Doncram. I researched a bit and there is some coverage about the building [1] [2], [3] which confirms the little data we have in the article, and it must have gained some attention being so tall and modern. Not speaking Turkish, it's hard for me to assess reliability and depth of this coverage, but then the nominator didn't seem to either. No such user ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2017 (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.