Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastwood City

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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood City

Completely FAILS wp:n .....the article was a branch of a promotional article from the parent company.... benjicharlton (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS AFD was created incorrectly - the page creator removed a CSD tag without reason....I didnt notice it was the creator and afd'd the article, when I realized I removed theao) AFD template and readded the CSD with a hang on tag to give the creator a chance to give reason for the contesting...I dont think this article needs to take up time with the AFD process...benjicharlton (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've replaced the AfD tag in the article and removed the speedy. It's stretch to call a geographical place an organization, even if it's a commercial development.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of in-depth reliable sources like the Manila Bulletin [1] and even the non-Philippine San Diego Union Tribune [2], the core criteria of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite notable, though it is a commercial location. --seav (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, keep a la TriBeCa. –Howard the Duck 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete geographical place or not the article is at present a blatant advertisement. Business parks are geographical places in the strictest sense of the word but, that doesn't make them notable. At best if consensus is that this counts as an actual "city/town/village" whatever it should be stubbified and written properly from a neutral standpoint. I fail to see any comparison between this article and TriBeCa so can Duck please explain what his point is. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because it passes the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. You are making a good argument for article improvement, but not deletion. I never subscribed to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found establishing notability, and I also fail to see how this article is blatant advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a project of this size will generally be notable. DGG (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Eastwood area is frequently attributed to the larger district of Libis in Quezon City, and is considered by some as one of Quezon City's two CBDs (the other being Araneta Center in Cubao), similar to Ortigas Center and the Makati City Central Business District. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (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.