Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2024 March 14
2024 March 16 >

15 March 2024

  • Luxury real estate – There are, clearly, encyclopaedic articles to be written about posh property, and indeed we have several, at manor house, English country house, mansion, villa, hacienda, palace, etc. etc. At issue at this DRV is the question of whether we should have an article about the industry of marketing posh property. It's a real industry with its own trade magazines, and practitioners do receive specialist training. Nevertheless, the 2017 decision to blank and redirect this content based on this discussion is resoundingly endorsed, and as an aside, "Luxury property" is not the British English for it (off the top of my head, variously "prestige homes", "country estates", "manor houses", or "mansions"). The community is divided about whether or how the disputed content should be re-created. Where there's no consensus to prevent the submission of a draft, the submission of a draft is permitted, and the reviewer may use their judgment to decide whether to move that draft to mainspace.β€” SΒ MarshallΒ  T/ C 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Luxury real estate ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • It's a correctly closed seven-year-old discussion, what exactly are you asking us to do here? SportingFlyer TΒ· C 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    ...Reinstate the article? Er. I was told by @ Thryduulf: over at RfD that this was the proper method of getting a previously-deleted-by-AfD article reinstated. Did I screw up here? π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upon review, I would not reinstate the article which was deleted at AfD as is, so an endorse. I have no problem if you want to write a draft of a new article using better sources than the one in the redirected article, but I'm a bit concerned about WP:DICDEF here. SportingFlyer TΒ· C 14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The closing correctly reflected consensus. And while three participants isn't much, we generally consider it to satisfy WP:QUORUM. But even if we treat this DRV as AfD round two, the provided sources do not confer enough notability to support a standalone article. That said, I do not object to any editor creating a "Luxury real estate" section in the redirect target, essentially treating the seven-year-old AfD result as a Merge rather than a redir. OwenΓ— ☎ 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • (Closing admin) Eh, it's a consensus, but like the weakest consensus possible. Only a weak self-endorse on my part. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as correct interpretation of consensus. This article was redirected with minimal participation seven years ago, so I have no objection to restoration to a full article if (and only if) more information is available to give luxury real estate standalone notability (which I do not believe is the case), obviously subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Allow re-creation. I was the person who first pointed out (at RfD) the flaws in the old AfD, though at this point there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from reopening this. It's a large industry that should have enough material to support notability for a stand-alone article, but the article as it stood before AfD did need improvement. The optimal course of action here I think would be to explicitly allow re-creation or restoration of the article (preferably with improved referencing), at the editor's own discretion. Without prejudice to a new AfD, of course. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Content is bad and redirection should not be undone. Additionally, I am against this topic as a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This AfD was fine. The problem was obvious and needed no further comment.β€” Alalch E. 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and allow re-creation with prior review. There was no other way to close the discussion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and allow recreation, preferably via AfC draft so that a reviewer can look again throughly before it falls into the vicious cycle again. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Allow Submission of Draft for review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Do not allow re-creation without consensus in support demonstrated at Talk:Real estate. Do not encourage creation of a draft without consensus at Talk:Real estate, as draftspace should not be used for content forking. The rationale for the redirect is obvious, there was no deletion, this is not a matter worthy of DRV or a second AfD. Use Talk:Real estate. β€” SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • So no need to add on to what everyone has said above, but one of the unspoken concerns, I'm guessing, from those not favoring a new article by this title is that the title is likely to be a spam magnet. Am I wrong? Jclemens ( talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    No. The redirected article has a long history that doesn’t including real spam. It does include sourcing from real estate fashion sources, which I consider weak, not really a foundation for an article so titled, but not spam. My opinion is that the article, like others listed under Niche real estate, are worthy of coverage but not as stand alone articles, a WP:Structurism issue. But more importantly is process. It was properly redirected, and there is no deletion involved, so it is out of scope of DRV. When it comes to organising and improving content, editors should use talk pages. Coordinating content on multiple pages is not well done by unilaterally making new draft pages, or unilaterally overturning a past redirect decision. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Example content was:
    Luxury real estate entails greater responsibility for agents who handle transactions than ordinary real estate. They must advertise to a national audience to attract non-local buyers, whereas ordinary real estate only generally requires exposure in local media.
    Its not spam, but it does read like high end real estate agents talking about what they do. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_March_15&oldid=1215489877"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2024 March 14
2024 March 16 >

15 March 2024

  • Luxury real estate – There are, clearly, encyclopaedic articles to be written about posh property, and indeed we have several, at manor house, English country house, mansion, villa, hacienda, palace, etc. etc. At issue at this DRV is the question of whether we should have an article about the industry of marketing posh property. It's a real industry with its own trade magazines, and practitioners do receive specialist training. Nevertheless, the 2017 decision to blank and redirect this content based on this discussion is resoundingly endorsed, and as an aside, "Luxury property" is not the British English for it (off the top of my head, variously "prestige homes", "country estates", "manor houses", or "mansions"). The community is divided about whether or how the disputed content should be re-created. Where there's no consensus to prevent the submission of a draft, the submission of a draft is permitted, and the reviewer may use their judgment to decide whether to move that draft to mainspace.β€” SΒ MarshallΒ  T/ C 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Luxury real estate ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Little to any actual policy-based reasoning was used in this discussion, nor had any discussion taken place concerning the actual contents of the article-- the nominator simply compared the name of the article and proposed redirect target with the names of another article and redirect, and of the only two participants, one merely gave a WP:PERNOM vote, while the other participant suggested that a mention within the new target article would suffice. Closing admin performed a WP:BLAR as per nom, without adding anything to the new target article as per the second participant. π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • It's a correctly closed seven-year-old discussion, what exactly are you asking us to do here? SportingFlyer TΒ· C 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    ...Reinstate the article? Er. I was told by @ Thryduulf: over at RfD that this was the proper method of getting a previously-deleted-by-AfD article reinstated. Did I screw up here? π”π”²π”«π”žπ”ͺπ”žπ”«π”«πŸŒ™πŸŒ™πŸŒ™ 𝔗π”₯𝔒 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔒𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I hadn't looked closely enough at the AfD to realise it was that old and assumed it was recent. I have no further opinion on the merits or otherwise of overturning the decision. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upon review, I would not reinstate the article which was deleted at AfD as is, so an endorse. I have no problem if you want to write a draft of a new article using better sources than the one in the redirected article, but I'm a bit concerned about WP:DICDEF here. SportingFlyer TΒ· C 14:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The closing correctly reflected consensus. And while three participants isn't much, we generally consider it to satisfy WP:QUORUM. But even if we treat this DRV as AfD round two, the provided sources do not confer enough notability to support a standalone article. That said, I do not object to any editor creating a "Luxury real estate" section in the redirect target, essentially treating the seven-year-old AfD result as a Merge rather than a redir. OwenΓ— ☎ 14:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • (Closing admin) Eh, it's a consensus, but like the weakest consensus possible. Only a weak self-endorse on my part. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse as correct interpretation of consensus. This article was redirected with minimal participation seven years ago, so I have no objection to restoration to a full article if (and only if) more information is available to give luxury real estate standalone notability (which I do not believe is the case), obviously subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Allow re-creation. I was the person who first pointed out (at RfD) the flaws in the old AfD, though at this point there doesn't seem to be much to be gained from reopening this. It's a large industry that should have enough material to support notability for a stand-alone article, but the article as it stood before AfD did need improvement. The optimal course of action here I think would be to explicitly allow re-creation or restoration of the article (preferably with improved referencing), at the editor's own discretion. Without prejudice to a new AfD, of course. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Content is bad and redirection should not be undone. Additionally, I am against this topic as a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. This AfD was fine. The problem was obvious and needed no further comment.β€” Alalch E. 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and allow re-creation with prior review. There was no other way to close the discussion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and allow recreation, preferably via AfC draft so that a reviewer can look again throughly before it falls into the vicious cycle again. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Allow Submission of Draft for review. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and Do not allow re-creation without consensus in support demonstrated at Talk:Real estate. Do not encourage creation of a draft without consensus at Talk:Real estate, as draftspace should not be used for content forking. The rationale for the redirect is obvious, there was no deletion, this is not a matter worthy of DRV or a second AfD. Use Talk:Real estate. β€” SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • So no need to add on to what everyone has said above, but one of the unspoken concerns, I'm guessing, from those not favoring a new article by this title is that the title is likely to be a spam magnet. Am I wrong? Jclemens ( talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    No. The redirected article has a long history that doesn’t including real spam. It does include sourcing from real estate fashion sources, which I consider weak, not really a foundation for an article so titled, but not spam. My opinion is that the article, like others listed under Niche real estate, are worthy of coverage but not as stand alone articles, a WP:Structurism issue. But more importantly is process. It was properly redirected, and there is no deletion involved, so it is out of scope of DRV. When it comes to organising and improving content, editors should use talk pages. Coordinating content on multiple pages is not well done by unilaterally making new draft pages, or unilaterally overturning a past redirect decision. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Example content was:
    Luxury real estate entails greater responsibility for agents who handle transactions than ordinary real estate. They must advertise to a national audience to attract non-local buyers, whereas ordinary real estate only generally requires exposure in local media.
    Its not spam, but it does read like high end real estate agents talking about what they do. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_March_15&oldid=1215489877"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE