Uranus building

AfDs for this article:

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

Uranus building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS: This appears to be a fail of WP:NBUILDING and thus is likely not notable. I am finding more coverage of the earthquake than the building itself. If there is more coverage about the collapse, then the title should be "Collapse of Uranus building" rather than this title. Awesome Aasim 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just took a look at the previous nomination: The claims of "notability" being drawn appear to be from WP:SYNTH. Passing mentions does not guarantee notability. Synthesis of sources that mention individual facts is not an encyclopedia article, it's WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Awesome Aasim 18:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pinging the previous participants, given that this just closed: @Piotrus, @Cunard, @DANGA14, @Vchimpanzee, @Great_achievement, @Chongkian, @Brudelman, and @Liz. Mason (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm mainly interested in what went wrong with the construction of this building compared to others, so I guess that's okay.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is notability regardless of whether it is notable from the earthquake or not. The AFP/Straits Times as well as the United Daily News sources provided in the previous AFD clearly passes the mark for "significant coverage" counted into WP:GNG. There's also other sources from Google that specifically cover the building. WP:NBUILDING states "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.", for which I find the building to be passing the "historic" part as what the AP has termed as an "iconic" image from the earthquake, in addition to the BBC claiming the image of the building has been "shared across the world". Currently don't have any strong opinions for the proposed new title. S5A-0043Talk 02:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of coverage of Uranus building before the collapse, so I oppose a rename. The nominator said the article violates WP:SYNTH, which says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

    It is unclear how any of the sources are being combined to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". "Synthesis of sources that mention individual facts is not an encyclopedia article" does not violate WP:SYNTH if the synthesis does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".

    Cunard (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep
    Yeah... even tho i didnt see the sources i agree w cunard DANGA14talk 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO one sentence of coverage in a source is just a trivial mention, not WP:SIGCOV. Certain structures, namely bridges and tunnels, it is trivial to find mentions in secondary sources, especially going back to close to the bridge's opening. Others, you can't. Awesome Aasim 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I provided in the "Selection of three sources" section do not provide one sentence of coverage. They are lengthy newspaper articles about the Uranus building published in 1992, 1993 and 1995. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]