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.
No indication of notability per the sources presented, the creator disruptively moved the page back to namespace, so I couldn't draftify it again. zoglophie•talk•10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - nothing of any notability here. Sources are purely promotional and simple listings . No RSs. Searches found nothing better. Paid for editing ? Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional). But
Zoglophie, please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion. It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified. You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion. This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it.
Elemimele (
talk)
11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved". But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites. zoglophie•talk•13:59, 20 March 2024 (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.
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.
No indication of notability per the sources presented, the creator disruptively moved the page back to namespace, so I couldn't draftify it again. zoglophie•talk•10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - nothing of any notability here. Sources are purely promotional and simple listings . No RSs. Searches found nothing better. Paid for editing ? Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional). But
Zoglophie, please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion. It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified. You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion. This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it.
Elemimele (
talk)
11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved". But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites. zoglophie•talk•13:59, 20 March 2024 (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.