Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromeda (skyscraper)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda (skyscraper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This apartment building does not meet WP:NBUILDING criteria as it does not have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, nor enough independent SIGCOV in reliable, third-party sources for WP:GNG. The coverage seems to be more about marketing the condos. Article was created by a COI/UPE editor, who has been indeff'd. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Creation by blocked UPE. Not a particulalry attractive or standout building. scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Scope_creep. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It does have in-depth coverage in the form of a review by real estate website Think of Living[1]. The project announcement was covered by Khao Sod (and probably others), though the article appears to be mainly based on the press release[2]. Mentioned in a Bangkok Post piece about the company's operations[3], already cited in article. Briefly mentioned in an article about investing in Pattaya real estate by DDproperty.com[4]. Winner in the Thailand Property Awards 2017[5] (removed from the article prior to AfD). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I translated the "review" from Thai to English, it seemed like a press release and sales pitch to buy condos, not a serious architectural review nor in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's a website aimed at condo buyers; it's not supposed to be a serious architectural critique. The article is certainly not a press release, though it naturally repeats some information supplied by the developer. (Are you looking at the entire thing, by any chance? There's a "Read more" button doesn't seem to work under the Google Translate website.) More could be discussed on how independent/reliable such websites are as a source (the industry in Thailand is not always transparent about sponsorship), but the writing approach seems comparable to the gadget/video game review websites commonly known throughout the Web. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paul 012, I'll go back and try to find the "Read more" button. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was able to click on "Read More" and manually translate paragraph by paragraph. Think of Living is a real estate sales site, it is not a newspaper, magazine nor journal. It seems to be an affiliate of realtor.com and propertyguru.com according to the links at the bottom of the main page. Several sections of Read More are about Pattaya and Pratumanak Hill, not about the building. Then one finds descriptions on how to find the beach or shopping mall. Then there is a very long, detailed and illustrated section on driving directions to the condo sales office. The info on the condo itself amounts to things like "the lot is rectangular", "good vacation venue", "nice views". 9/10th of the article is public relations sales promo. I don't think this source can be taken seriously as SIGCOV in RS as it's crystal clear it's "product placement" sponsored content or Native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough assessment, though I wouldn't say it's crystal clear sponsored content. The website carries plenty of critical reviews, though the author's holding back on giving the property a value-for-the-money score on this one does seem rather suspicious. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this building has won an award, Best High-Rise Condo Architectural Design (Resort) at the PropertyGuru Thailand Property Awards, organized by PropertyGuru, a company that descibes itself as a "property technology company". With 39 awards and 41 nominees, how can you NOT win? What the source (thephuketnews.com) doesn't make clear is that the organizer will let anyone enter the "competition" for free, but then requires all shortlisted entrants to purchases an Awards Marketing Package (or more than one). In other words, this award is a promotional marketing event, paid for by the developers of the buildings. Vexations (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (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.