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. 2/1 (including nominator) to delete, but more importantly, no information presented why it meets criteria. I'm sympathetic to doncram's frustration and willing to put it in his user space, but if we only consider policy based rationales, delete is the proper course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

105 Campestre Torre A[edit]

105 Campestre Torre A (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)

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre B Staszek Lem (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tagged the articles for the three towers for merger, as there was little reason to suggest stand-alone articles. But there is very little reason to keep the articles anyway. They were PRODded shortly after creation but dePRODded by the creator who added references, but the references don't appear to be reliable ones. Of the three references, "proyectosdevida" is the website of the towers' construction company Bolívar, Aisa is a real estate company who were managing apartments in the towers, and Olga Miranda is a TV chef, and the reference to the towers is no longer available on her website anyway, even in an archived version, so we have no idea what she said about them (or why a TV chef should be a reliable source). The towers' sole claim to fame seems to be that they were the tallest in the country at the time, but they were surpassed within a year and so they don't appear to have any lasting notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in absence of a List of tallest buildings in El Salvador (currently a redlink). The building was apparently the very tallest building in El Salvador for a period, and certainly is among the tallest existing buildings by some reasonable cutoff. An alternative would be to create the List of tallest buildings in El Salvador, copy the material here into a section on this building, and redirect to the section. I almost always disagree with AFDs about tall buildings because it is always better to merge/redirect to a valid list-article of tall buildings, at least, if not keep the article outright. Here, the nomination is premature: the focus in developing Wikipedia in this area should first be on creating List of tallest buildings in El Salvador. See Category:Lists of tallest buildings. To the closer, note this is clear direction on a way forward. --doncram 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or create a list of tallest buildings in El Salvador and redirect there. With respect, I don't really follow your argument for keeping this article, or the ones for the other two towers. It should not be kept just because another article doesn't exist. If you want to keep the article, the onus is on you to provide good sources to justify that keep, not just state what should be done. If you create a sourced list of the tallest buildings in the country I would have no objections to a redirect, but as it stands it has no good independent sources whatsoever, and if we're going to keep articles without any reliable sources then Wikipedia ceases to become a reliable encyclopedia. The nomination is hardly premature: the article has existed for more than six years with no independent sources. And whoever the closer for this nomination is, it isn't their job to find "a way forward". Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The deletion nominator brings the attention of many editors to a deficient area, tall buildings in El Salvador. I think it is appropriate for others to say don't do that in haphazard order, be organized, create the tall buildings list first. This building pretty clearly should be on such a list. Don't delete this and lose the info we have (including the fact that several people have tried and failed to find better sources), taking Wikipedia backwards. Do your homework / proper preparation / figure out if B and C buildings also should be on that list. I think it is fair and good to say go away for now, come back to AFD a few months from now if it still makes sense. Generally, we should support positive development, not negative. And a positive way forward is what a closer should be looking for, IMHO. --doncram 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might have brought the article to the attention of "many editors", but after more than three weeks of being listed for deletion, we are the only two people discussing the article, so clearly nobody else is reading this or feels strongly enough to voice an opinion. I think we can both agree that these buildings have a single claim to fame, that they were for a very brief period the tallest in El Salvador. Seeing as they have no other notable attributes, that there are no reliable independent sources at all to back up these articles, and that they are now only among the tallest buildings in El Salvador, I agree that they are better served on a list of tallest buildings in the country rather than having individual articles. However, as nobody else feels inclined to improve these articles or create such a list, I'm afraid it might fall upon you to research and create such an article if you want the information to be kept. If nobody else adds to this deletion discussion, I believe you will get your wish – with just one "keep" vote and one "delete" vote it will probably be closed as "no consensus" and the articles will stay for the time being, which will give you time to create a list. But I think there is a good chance that if no action is taken on these articles in the meantime, they will be put up for deletion again in due course. Richard3120 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.