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 redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Peak Apartments (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)

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable residential development. Significant RS coverage not found. I've found one press release and one catalog listing. The content is routine: how many units, etc. Notability not inherited from the Paddy's Market atop of which the building sits.

Tagged for notability since 2008. Created by Special:Contributions/Mynameisbobobobob with no other contributions outside of the Australian real estate market. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons outlined by the nominator. Even the title of the cited 1997 offline article doesn't suggest it is solely about The Peak. Sysney has a large number of tall buildings so this residential block isn't remarkable in any respect. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If consensus ends up being to delete here, I would strongly suggest a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The list-article List of tallest buildings in Sydney contains substantial assertion (omitted from the AFD subject article) that the subject was "Tallest residential building in Sydney from 1996–1997" and it is still tied for 21st. I don't doubt the accuracy of that; it should be in the article. I expect that newspapers covered the construction in sources that are not conveniently online to find right now, though I haven't looked. I waver but suggest Keep rather than merge/redirect; nothing is gained by removing this from view IMHO. Certainly the outcome should not be an outright delete; merge/redirect to the row in the list-article is far better. --doncram 03:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. I really want to support Doncram, but I can't find anything reliable that discusses the topic, and I just don't think that the claim Doncram identified is a reason to keep the article. However, I also don't agree with the nominator's claim that this is a promotional article. Sorry, closing admin, I can't help you one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I really want to support Doncram as well; theoretically it may be notable. Unfortunately I suspect few avid historians of the history of The Peak Apartments exist, as there are currently no endowed chairs for this endeavor. I've rescued worse before but the muse has not moved me on this one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: From searching on "Peak Apartments Sydney 1996 construction", yields, behind paywall for me: The Sydney Morning Herald from Sydney, New South Wales · Page 87 / [https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/123768159/ Aug 31, 1996 - ... Herald (Sydney, New South Wales), Saturday, August 31, 1996, Page 87. ... ON THEIR BOOKS Under construction in the CBD Leighton Sydney .... apartment development and the $125 million Peak Apartments, and is also ..." Interesting that it was a $125 million project, and there would be more info in that article and others of that era. This is evidence of coverage existing; we don't need it in hand to do the right thing. --doncram 04:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's comment -- the linked coverage strikes me as routine: "it costs so much, its under construction, etc". "Tied for 21st tallest building in Sydney" is not remarkable either. Nothing stands out about this particular development to warrant an encyclopedia entry. However, I would be okay with a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney as suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Sydney. With much respect to Doncram, most of the coverage is routine property pages stuff. If we could get something to confirm that people were interested in its brief tenure as the tallest residential building in Sydney then maybe we could revisit this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 31 March 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.