Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (3rd 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperCity

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

This Article was approved for deletion on two occasions. At a later date a redirect was established to SkyscapersPage.com. These two websites are not affiliated. This resulted in vandalism to SkyscapersPage.com.

SkyscraperPage.com is a Canadian site owned by: SKYSCRAPER SOURCE MEDIA INC. SkyscraperCity.com is European site owned by: STICHTING WOLKENKRABBERS (Jan Klerks) Here are the websites owned by SKYSCRAPER SOURCE MEDIA INC.: http://skyscrapersource.com/websites.htm Here are the websites owned by Jan Klerks: http://www.janklerks.nl/ 192.136.235.164 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete and Salt: Above was left on the article's Talk page by stated IP contributor. ScraperCity was del then recreated multiple times, redirected to other but they're unrelated outside of topic area. No sources and fails to meet WP:GNG - stinks of WP:ADMASQ, WP:PROMO. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:03, 28 January 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 12 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.