Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zandspruit Bush & Aero Estate

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. Sources include adequate verification. Editor is encouraged to improve the work. JodyB_talk 22:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zandspruit Bush & Aero Estate

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

This is a borderline WP:CSD#G11 case, but I thought I'd bring it here instead. The article is almost entirely sourced to press releases from the company's own website and is stuffed full of peacock phrases and is effectively a barely veiled ad. The only real claim to notability is first development in the world to combine airstrip and game reserve, that doesn't seem a strong enough claim to have an article. I can find no coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Valenciano (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous references listed, some from high profile independent aviation orientated magazines.. these articles are available for reference from the Zandspruit website as otherwise you would need to be subscribed to the magazines to read them on line and direct links to the appropriate pages would not be possible. I urge you to please read through some of the reference material which is conveniently located on the Zandspruit website - http://www.zandspruit.co.za/news.html as a central repository for numerous media articles referring in great detail to the development.

Note, there are a number of "Airpark" articles with far less notability and considerably less reference material available for view from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-in_community#Some_notable_airparks Of the airparks listed there only 2 of the articles have more than 3 references...

Please review in detail before deleting this article. I have only just made it live and intend to do more work on it over time. Constructive criticism, guidance and assistance is most welcome. Please assist accordingly.

Quadtripplea (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had every intention of working more on this article right now, but will now wait so as not to waste my time if someone is going to just delete what I have done so far.

I am of the humble and honest opinion that the nomination for deletion was a bit hasty.

Quadtripplea (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You don't need to have the sources readable online; in fact, it's prefereable to link directly to the original sources. See WP:PAYWALL, WP:OFFLINE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find four sources among that unfortunate wall of primary sources, that are otherwise reliable and independent. They are: LookLocal African PilotSA FlyerPilot's Post. Sources used more than once only count as a single source for AfD notability purposes (eg. multiple articles in African Pilot are not going to increase the topics notability). The claim that it is the world's first residential airpark with a game reserve is supported by the sources. I believe this is interesting enough and the sources are good enough for WP:GNG. The article does display some classic WP:PUFF symptoms such as "lots of footnotes to non-reliable sources" (in this case primary sources), picturesque sales brochure language "[the] River meanders through the estate" and excessive details on how to access and other stuff that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article, rather a sales brochure or marketing website somewhere. But that is all editing concern and the core topic appears notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Step - have made changes inline with comments. Please advise of next step and WRT removal of tags at the top of the article.

Note - SA Flyer and African Pilot articles require log on, subscription and payment in order to view through their main websites. For ease of reference media articles are published in pdf format on the website for Zandspruit.

Who can remove the Categories: All articles lacking reliable references, All articles with a promotional tone, Articles for deletion, Articles lacking reliable references from October 2013, and Articles with a promotional tone from October 2013 ? Quadtripplea (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2013 (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.