Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (5th nomination)

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. In view of additional references that provide the GNG rationale. Tone 10:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SkyscraperCity

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity
• Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (5th nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

SkyscraperCity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been created for a while, but doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's notability standards. Basically all the citations on this article are either not reliable sources or they didn't discuss this subject in sufficient details (if at all) or both. I also tried to do some quick search on the internet, but can't really find any editorial coverage. I believe a discussion around this page needs to happen.

Edit: I just found out that the page has in fact been nominated for deletion four times before now, and the consensus has been to delete all four times. Seems, this article is being continuously recreated, despite the lack of notability. I advise that the topic should be protected from further recreations, if it is deleted again this time. Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since the last discussion was four years ago, G4 ("Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion") probably doesn't apply. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• True, the last discussion closed in 2016. However, this recreation was made the same year, but for some weird reasons escaped nomination for 4 years.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I find it ironic. This page was deleted 4 times through AfD, yet it was still recreated less than a year after it was deleted. It should've been protected from creation indefinitely years ago after being deleted for the 4th time. 🤔 ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep At least both [1] and [2] are significant coverage. The article has 11 interwikis and 25 readers daily, obviously there is a small but constant demand for that article.Jklamo (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The first link is just a passing mention, while the second link is from some neighbourhood newssite (questionable reliability, and certainly not sufficient to establish notability). Interwiki links or number of readers are quite irrelevant to the notability of the subject.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep we have a web site that meets GNG. I have added some RS to the article. We have many news organizations which quote the site, and also link to the photographs. I think we can make a case for WP:WEBCRIT being met. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• KEEP Is loopnorth [3] seems like a reliable source and give sit significant coverage. The National (Abu Dhabi) is a reliable source giving it significant coverage. Looking through the many search results, it is used as a source by a lot of legitimate news sites, quoting what was posted there and showing pictures people uploaded there for anyone to use. Google skyscrapercity.com and you get 7,080 results to sort through. Dream Focus 00:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Lightburst and Dream Focus, it is ranked by Alexa as 6,696th in global engagement, and 12 other wikis have an entry as well Patapsco913 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - With 4 prior AFDs ending in delete, it should not have been recreated. It doesn't pass GNG, and if someone has new GNG-qualifying sources to share, that should be brought to DRV. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  The last AFD was in 2016. Dream Focus 16:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I added some references. I can add more - however I think there are sufficient refs ATM. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep slim, but enough to bring over GNG, plus reasoning provided above.Djflem (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per reasons above. By this time, the article is good enough to pass WP:NWEB. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 21 July 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.