Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Point Business Park

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Point Business Park[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable place or area. Lack of independent sources to verify notability Ajf773 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajf773, hope you're well. This is the central office area for all IT companies (yeah, Yahoo wishes to move out, I guess because of the costs). GEOFEAT requires significant coverage in reliable sources for commercial areas to be notable. I can't tell if sources like this and this qualify as significant coverage. But my personal view would be that the business park is quite extensively (yet, trivially) covered in innumerable sources. One could, for the encyclopedic worth, keep this article. As it is, we are supposed to be a gazetteer, and the documentation of this park could help in that. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ajf773; let me offer a warmer hand of support :) If you decide to withdraw this Afd, I'll try and add a few reliable sources that, in unison, would provide some meat. Do you think that works for you? Thanks. Lourdes 01:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively, as it seems like a major deal. Dublin is major city; Ireland has been successful getting companies to locate there; this is biggest business park. Tag it for needing sources, but I believe there must exist extensive newspaper coverage about it being set up originally and about arrivals of various businesses, etc. over the years. --do ncr am 22:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where this is heading. If someone is willing to add verifiable independent sources, I'll look at withdrawing the AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you withdraw your nomination. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but I don't like the threat you imply, as if you can force others to do what you want, or else you will... what? --do ncr am 00:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

doncram hope you're well. I don't think Ajf773 meant it like that at all. It's just a matter of speech I guess. Seems all well. Cheers. Lourdes 01:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost count the number of times people throw sources about in AfD's to justify a Keep but never actually put them in the article themselves. So yes, the nomination stands until it's done properly. Ajf773 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Ajf773, your argument goes against BEFORE, which does mention that "if you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." I'm alright with whatever you decide (to continue with the nomination or not); my offer mentioned above stands in good faith. Warmly. Lourdes 03:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added a few sources, at least two which discuss the business park quite significantly. Thanks. Lourdes 07:13, 28 July 2017 (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.