Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahria Town Phase 8


 * 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. Merge or redirect was considered, but as people have said, there is no worthwhile content, and search term is unlikely.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bahria Town Phase 8

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising for likely non-notable building project Passportguy (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement, spam, unencyclopedic. "The beauty of the project is that only 35% of the available land is being utilized for residential plots" - I think not. Tavix | Talk  22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Tone is way too promotional. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No mention of notability nor any third-party sources to back it up. The second paragraph, as users above have indicated, violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Contributions) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bahria Town. I have removed some of the promotion, but declined speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In order to merge the info it into Bahria Town it would still have to be established that this development project is actually notable as a new town quarter/settlement, and that the article was not just created to promote a new development. Passportguy (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also proposed speedy deletion of Bahria Town, since that's not an encyclopaedia article and would require a complete rewrite from scratch to make it one, but for reasons that completely escape me, the speedy deletion was declined. In any case, a merge is entirely unnecessary because there is no encyclopaedic content to merge, and a redirect is unnecessary because this is not a plausible search term.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:35, 8 May 2009 (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.