Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaping Seattle: Buildings
- 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shaping Seattle: Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local government website. PROD previously declined with a suggestion to merge the content somewhere, but there's no clear place to merge it to -- there's no article for Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (the agency that runs the website) and it would be WP:UNDUE in the main Seattle or even Government and politics of Seattle articles. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the existing references appear to pass GNG, with the King5, GeekWire, and WaPo sites. Have you been able to access and review these? Linkrot appears to have claimed one, and another is paywalled for me. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Washington Post article has two sentences:
Seattle, though, has already built a platform tracking new real-estate projects that hints at what could be possible. Projects that have to go through a design review are all mapped by the city here, with each one linked to a timeline, images and public documents.
Not exactly WP:SIGCOV. King 5, KPLU, and CityLab are all just regurgitating the press release announcing the website, which also doesn't count towards notability. GeekWire is the only one that comes close, but that article is much more about Seattle in Progress than Shaping Seattle. I haven't been able to find anything else that counts towards notability either, with all of the coverage just being "hey, this exists" regurgitations of the press release from 2015 -- nothing from the decade since then. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Washington Post article has two sentences:
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete this got a routine blurst of PR placement/news coverage in 2015 and nothing since apparently. Doesn't appear encyclopædic. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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.