Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylink, Mumbai

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skylink, Mumbai

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

Procedural nom. This was submitted for speedy deletion by Dbottleman (talk · contribs) with the following rationale: "This article displays incorrect information about HBS Realtors Pvt Ltd and its projects, the corporate site www.hbsrealtors.com has no such mention of any Skylink project in its Portifolio. On visiting the location as well, there is no mention of Skylink. The links attached to Callison as well by this author are stubs and do not work. On behalf of HBS Realtors, we request you to delete this page immediately due to publication of incorrect information." I am bringing this to a full discussion, in which I have no opinion of my own. -- Y not? 15:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's the Callison page archived in May 2013 at the Wayback Machine; that resembles the rendering used in the article. The page was still there the following month but by November 2013 had been pulled. The article makes heavy use of a forum, and I am unsure of the relevance of the Times of India reference, which is all about a site ... and I'm not sure it's the right site. Meanwhile, the article says that the project went through name changes, but I still find HBS Towers, Worli on real-estate sites here and here. However, the lack of exterior renderings makes me wonder what the current status of the project is. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Procedural Keep~~. There is no nominator standing behind this. The term "procedural nom" seems to be a euphemism for an editor, in this case < s>Gene93k User:Y, making a nomination but not having any commitment -- they even say they "have no opinion". Without a nominator putting any reputation into making a properly prepared nom, the appropriate response is to Keep, as promptly as possible to avoid wasting more attention. Call for closure, already. --doncram 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is a nominator - it's Dbottleman (talk · contribs), a user with no other edits. Obviously, Dbottleman is not familiar with this encyclopedia's policies, so I helped him or her channel it to the right venue, in this case AfD. I'll make that clear up top. -- Y not? 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying and changing the appearance of this from being one more "procedural nom" for anonymous I.P. editors. Well, this named editor doesn't have much stake either, but I strike my "procedural keep" vote. Thanks. --do ncr am 01:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 16:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (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.