Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodland Crest

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Crest[edit]

Neutral bump from speedy, because A7 doesn't cover residential complexes. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. —EdGl 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep - It has way more than enough information, has been worked on for a period of time, and it's notable enough! Insanephantom 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable housing complex. TJ Spyke 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator here, and I created this article because there were many of these types of articles in Wikipedia, especially the ones about Hong Kong private residential estates - should all of them be deleted because none of them notable? I feel that it is good for Wikipedia to have articles about lesser known places and residential - notability is always disputed. typhoonchaser 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There are so many of them already, and it is useful for people searching for minor stuff. Insanephantom 05:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No point in invoking the Pokemon defense, or the I like it argument. I tagged it for speedy, as I see absolutely nothing notable about it, and what's more, I don't see any assertion of notability. This is just another Hong Kong private housing estate. The keep advocates above admit as much. Almost all of the residential developments by the major developers over the last 30 odd years have followed this format (similar facilities, no of units, etc). Only the developer is notable. One hit in Google archive, 95 unique Ghits, most of which are wiki and mirrors, the developer's own site, or are Government sites in relation to infrastructure. This is not like Amoy Gardens (SARS), or Mei Foo Sun Chuen (biggest mass housing estate in HK). Ohconfucius 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said 'I like it'. Honestly, I don't see any sense in deleting something that has obviously a lot of work put into it. As I said, it's a good reference for people interested. Insanephantom 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks "multiple third-party non-trivial coverage" to prove its notability. Mere existence is not good enough. And yes, other articles on private residences that do not assert notability should be deleted as well. Zun aid ©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the article's talk page, it is clear that a lot of work has been done to this article. It's too late to consider deletion. Thousands of other articles may meet the AfD criteria in this way, and they should be deleted before this, since this has more work in. I may just not be a deletionist, but in fact, I once had to do research on housing estates in Hong Kong (I live there), and the information from Wikipedia can be really useful if they have articles. Insanephantom 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totaly non-notable housing complex. "there are other non notable articles on WP" is not an argument in favor of keeping, but rather a call to action to AfD those, as well. Isarig 23:39, 20 December 2006 (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.