Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/His Highness Sheikh Hasher Tower

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. The only source cited calls it a "stale proposal"; article can be reintroduced if it is ever revived. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His Highness Sheikh Hasher Tower

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

Fails to be notable with a few dozen google hits. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but couldn't you have just let my prod run its course? 208.59.120.194 (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could of, but I always do AFD's just to confirm that the article is not notable to be on wikipedia, however some articles have PROD's and are notable, but then no one does any action after a week, it gets deleted, then some people in the community get pissed.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your always doubling the workload of AFD when a process is already in place to lighten that workload ??? Don't bother to answer. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Number of ghits is one of the classic non-reasons for deletion. 62 stories is enough to be notable. our usual cutoff for large cities is 40 & there are dozen of articles for Dubai buildings that size and over. If it is going to be challenged, AfD is the place, (I found it there already) for this is not going to be uncontroversial. When many other articles for exactly comparable things exist, prod is usually not a good idea. Prod is for cases where similar deletions are generally accepted, & can therefore not be assumed to be uncontroversial. I would have removed the prod had Pookeo9 not done so, but we should not attempt to destroy the usefulness of prod when it does apply. I and several others routinely check all prodded articles, so it is by no means automatic that any good one will be deleted. If anything, I think its less common than at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 62 stories of air right now, DGG. Glittering Pillars (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only being a proposal is not in itself a reason for deletion. Astronaut (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a proposal might have reached a point where it is seriously notable even if it never gets any further. I don't think this one has reached that stage. It hasn't even had planning approval. - Pointillist (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference (external links: Sheikh Hasher Tower on SkyscraperPage.com) lists the project status as: "stale proposal", so I can't see any harm in deleting the article. There is a risk—I'm not saying it has happened in this case—that property developers will try to use Wikipedia to promote projects that are still at a very early stage. Without reliable sources there is too much scope for misinformation, anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreation once construction has begun. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is no longer flagged with {{AfDM}} - is there any reason for this? Jimmy Slade (talk · contribs) has removed the template and deprodded a load of other proposed Dubai towers. Was this agreed somewhere else? - Pointillist (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a confused person trying to save the economy of Dubai by editing Wikipedia. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Untagged for under two hours. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (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.