Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympia 66

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.

Olympia 66

Olympia 66 (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)

Non-notable building. Likely created as paid editing to promote the architect: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Aedas. Note this deletion rationle is a copy of what Smartse wrote in 2015 proposed deletion, and the article hasn't been improved since. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are more sources available than in 2015: SCMP (the best), archdaily and more mentions in the SCMP: [1] [2]. I'm not convinced that those are enough to meet GNG though. I think it may be better to merge and redirect to the developer/owner company (Hang Lung Properties) which doesn't make any mention of the mall. I seem to remember us doing something similar with articles about American malls. SmartSE (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We don't know the motivation for the article creation, but in its current form it's quite innocuous. It has received substantial coverage from reliable sources.[3][4] And it's the location of the world's largest Apple Store.[5] These are just English sources. It would be willful ignorance to believe there isn't much more coverage in Chinese. --Oakshade (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It matters not that we don't have articles on Olympia 1 through 65 (why is this?) but 66 appears notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "66" is a lucky number in Chinese.
  Grand Gateway 66. Timmyshin (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Interesting!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject of the article is a non-notable shopping centre. Even the references providing by Oakshade fail to establish notability.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer - The above user is now stalking me and showing up at AfD's I've participated in to !vote against me and even reverted improvements/adding source to an article in AfD I made. [6]--Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction - Removing a notability tag without discussion is not an improvement, it's vandalism and runs counter to the principles of consensus. The fact that you added a mediocre source whilst removing the tag is an unfortunate coincidence, but doesn't offset the undesirable behavior you exhibited.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone is free to look at the diff provided to decide if the above user removed an added source (a solid historical source) disrupting a
      WP:HEY effort[7], not to mention following me around just to !vote against me[8][9].--Oakshade (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • So you removed the dated notability tag with the aim of changing people's votes?   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the AfD for the article Olympia 66. If you'd like to discuss the details of the editing of the article
          Fair Oaks Avenue (Pasadena, California) and the alleged effects it has on editors, you need to have that discussion on its talk page or the AfD that is currently occurring there. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2017 (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.