Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emporis (2nd nomination)

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

AfD restarted due to convassing and sockpuppetry issues. Previous rationale was "no indication of notability, unable to find sufficient RS (Gnews, google) to establish. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)" Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A widely-known and widely-cited database for construction and architecture. The German Wikipedia cites this article from Spiegel Online which has substantive information about the website. The Emporis website has an "In the press" page which lists dozens more articles from reliable sources referencing Emporis or its awards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known site listing information about skyscrapers. Widely used and recognised as a reliable source for tall building articles in Wikipedia and many news organisations worldwide. Compares favourably with the CTBUH. Astronaut (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with its characterization as WP:RS in and of itself, as that would suggest that buildings listed by it were prima facie notable. I agree that the listings are widely referred in to in RS and thus notable. The citations on the page, though, are entirely self-sourced to the company's page itself, or to press releases. I would be ok rescinding my nomination, but something really needs to be done about that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with your assessment that it is not a reliable source simply because "that would suggest that buildings listed by it were prima facie notable". It is the same argument as suggesting a newspaper is not a reliable source simply because it carries some trivial news. As for the in-page citations, I have added several additional citations from reliable third party sources showing that Emporis is recognised as an authority on the subject by many others and its annual Skyscraper Award is internationally recognised by reliable third party sources as well. I hope you will now consider rescinding your nomination. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2013 (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.