Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelberg (Victoria, Australia)


 * 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. v/r - TP 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Adelberg (Victoria, Australia)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Author of promotional piece for Adelberg villa (http://www.adelberg.com.au/) has removed 2 separate speedy delete tags [inadvertently]. A whois check of domain here confirms that User:Hodgkinph is almost certainly the owner of this business. The article subject is a business whose notability is not credibly asserted in the body of the article. Moogwrench (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was not indended to be a marketing piece but rather an information piece for the guests to the property relating to the history of the area and information. I have rewritten it so that there is absolutely no links to the commercial site. I trust this is acceptable as this is the intention. First time user of Wiki so some latitude would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgkinph (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But, Hodgkinph, the subject of the article is a private commercial property/villa. And your last post says that the article is written to be a guide for the customers of the Villa. This does not mean that it's a bad or un-informative article; the question is whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. The core operative criteria there is wp:notability.
 * If you need understanding the lay of the land in Wikipedia (you being new) ping me and I'd be happy to. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I am failing to understand the difference between this and say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JW_Marriott_Hotels or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peninsula_Hong_Kong In fact, I would say by providing visitors to Adelberg with information on the history of the area and background to the district is more in line with Wikipedia's objectives (from what I can read). If it needs to be deleted then let me know and I will take it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Believe it now passes notability with insertion of reference of business.


 * First, to clarify I am only trying to help a new person in the ways of Wikipedia rather than debating for a particular decision here. The main guideline that determines whether an stand-alone article for a subject is allowed to exist is whether or not it meets the wp:notability guideline.   And, VERY  roughly speaking, what's needed for that is a few third party sources having covered the topic (as such) in reasonable depth.    And please note that the is for THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT.  For example, in order for me to create an article about rock stars who do knitting, I would need to show sources who covered rock stars who do knitting.  It would not suffice to find sources covering just rock stars, nor sources for knitting. Sincerely, 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk)
 * It looks to me like you have interesting and encyclopedic material in there. Possibly that would be good to include in the article on that geographic unit (e.g. town, province) rather than in an article on a nearby commercial property. The property could be worth a mention in that article. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have an interest in preserving this material if it were not to stay as this article? If so, I could help you work it in somewhere else.  North8000 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article makes no assertion of notability, and "Adelberg" is not mentioned in most of the refs. If such notability can be demonstrated in reliable sources, then I would be open to changing my !vote, but as it stands it is a borderline speedy. No redirect (implausible search term).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Adelberg is a rural property in Victoria". Sorry, no notability there. Not much more to say about the subject. Zero Google website hits. Zero Google news hits. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.