Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wynbrook

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. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wynbrook[edit]

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

Just like King's Leigh (afd) this is an advert for a Dacland real estate development (both kindly provided by the same person). Like that article the subject lacks coverage in independent reliable sources.

Reference analysis:

http://www.wynbrook.com.au// - developer's promotional site for the development
"Top 10 fastest growing local populations in Australia" - about the suburb it's in, no mention of the development
http://www.wynbrook.com.au/lifestyle// - more of the developer's promotional site
http://dacland.com.au/our-communities/ - A page by the real estate developers
http://www.realestate.com.au/project-wynbrook-vic-wyndham+vale-600007375// - an online advertisement on Realestate.com.au for this real estate development
http://www.wynbrook.com.au/lifestyle// - more of the developer's promotional site
"Wyndham Vale Station" - Regional Rail Link page for the suburbs station, no mention of the development
"Wyndham Bus Network Overhaul Planned for 2015" - news article about the suburb, no mention of the development

Pure advertising from a shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising and nothing else.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would fail WP:NGEO, nothing particularly notable about it if it is considered a business. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too small to pass my standards, with only 650 lots. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 27 July 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.