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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Towers Pune (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)

The towers themselves aren't all that notable. Gnews has articles similar to the one linked about announcing it, but I don't see anything that currently justifies a stand-alone article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did some article rescue activity, adding a significant amount of text and cites. It seems to me that the project has received significant coverage, enough to meet the notability threshold. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as here are the serious concerns: One is that these listed publications have in fact been found to be paid advertising, especially focused and involving companies, and that's the case here, especially the flashy fact it cares to note people who bought from this company, therefore the next part is the simple fact the attention is largely only about its name. Hence none of this amounts to any actual meaningful significance or notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Are you saying that the following references (added by user:Neutrality are not wp:rs?

1 New York Times

2 Economic Times

3 The Guardian

4 CNN Money

5 Washington Post Ottawahitech (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Basically the only best convincing of this would be NYT, because all of the others, and the listed articles here show it's simply reformatted PR company information, especially CNN Money which is literally only talking about its company finances and activities. None of this means anything when WP:SPAM and WP:NOT is applied (both policies), and as it is, we've established that anything of Indian companies are notoriously paid for, regardless of name and contents. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in The Guardian and The Washington Post do not even remotely resemble your description of them as "reformatted PR company information". They are both investigative articles containing information that I'm sure the owner of these buildings would have preferred not to come to light. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 politico http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-overseas-security-231948

7 Buzzfeed

8 Chicago Tribune Ottawahitech (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

• Keep I created this article as a stub on November 23. It went up for deletion within an hour of creation. Since then User:Neutrality did wonders with this stub. Unfortunately, the article has still not been wp:reviewed, which I believe prevents most internet viewers from seeing it and chiming in. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
• Delete After taking a look at the sources and doing some searching myself, I don't see how this article meets the notability guideline. → Call me Razr Nation 07:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per refs added by Neutrality. Additional refs are likely to be found in the Marathi language. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks like it has good sources now Victor Grigas (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Weak but notable enough. — JFG ^talk 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For the reasons noted by SwisterTwister--FeralOink (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the addition of good references, it clearly passes the WP:GNG, Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per enough refs. See also WP:WORLDVIEW. MB298 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 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.