Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altitude (building)

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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude (building)

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

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

This was a plan that never actually happened. The plan had some coverage, but not enough, and I am not sure how ambiguous a name like this is for a tall building. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if referenced properly. It's a curiosity, even if it's never going to happen. Shows hot important the victory was to the Sri Lankans at the time. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is it needs another source to be clearly notable. It's not completely non-notable and it may already be notable, but this is one of those really grey zone articles. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those "proper" references can be located. Otherwise, it looks like this Keep vote is nullified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ironically the additional coverage you would need to find in order to keep the article is a source explaining the cancellation of the building project, and assessing the significance of the project's failure. All the coverage currently cited in the article are essentially speculative WP:CRYSTALBALL claims simply repeating what the developers were saying, which turned out not to come true. In its current state, it is a misleading article that does not belong on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above, actual analysis of known available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Couldn't find enough sources, but draftification may be preferred; however the notability is dubious. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a 2023–2024 discussion on Skyscrapercity.com about the abandoned building project (with photos} and mention of a nascent new development taking its place, but it's in a discussion forum which has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, not a reliable source we can cite. (If you are curious, search for "Kotte | Baili Mix Development |Floors, Height-TBA| (Previous 96 Iconic Tower-Abondoned)".) At the moment the best WP:ATD that I can think of would be to merge to Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). But since we haven't found any sources yet that specifically explain the abandonment of the building project, none of the content here seems that useful in the context of that article. To Ouro's point, another alternative would be to mention it in the article Cricket in Sri Lanka. But that would be like a sentence and it would still be preferable to have a source verifying that the project was proposed and planned but later canceled...which I haven't found yet in ProQuest (although there is one 2017 Euroweek / Global Capital article about the asset bubble which mentions it in passing but not in a terribly meaningful way). As a side note, the former developer of the failed building project is using the existence of this Wikipedia article as a proof point in its portfolio (scroll to the bottom of that page). The responsible thing for Wikipedia to do is to delete. If the new development actually materialises and there is coverage, a new article could be created then; future sources might even mention the past failed building project. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (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.