Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barratt Developments in Woking


 * 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 --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Barratt Developments in Woking

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Inherently non-notable subject. I would also question whether this article is a bit POINTy, or an attempt to circumnavigate the deletion process, seeing as in the last few days both buildings featured have been nominated for deletion, both being well on the way to deletion at this moment in time.  role player 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete A10 The bulk of this article is a cut and paste from The Centrium, Woking and New central, both of which were created by the same author and are currently in AfD. Arguably this is a pre-emptive G4 speedy, as they are re-creating pages which at this time look pretty certain to be deleted. Even if the article is in good faith, it is far too commercial to stand. If it were moved to remove Barrat it would probably end up as 'tallest buildings in Woking', which was another page created by the same user which was deleted in AfD the other day so we are back to G4 again. Note that they already recreated that article once after AfD, and it was speedy deleted under G4--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Where else do I move this info EXPORT HOUSE?? At this rate I will have none of my articles left and I am thinking about deleting my wikipedia and find a diffrent online encyclopedia to place this info somewhere people may be grateful for it unlike here. &mdash; {Willrocks10 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)}
 * By far the best place is your own website - make one! &mdash; RHaworth 20:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per ThePaintedOne. Note to Willrocks10, there is no crusade or vendetta against you or articles you have created, you are just being asked to look at wikipedia's policies about notability and to create or add articles that meet those policies.  Just being a new office or residential development in Woking is not notable.  There are hundreds of building sites across the UK, by your criteria they should all have an article just because they are building sites.  Sorry but that's not a high enough threshold to justify inclusion. NtheP (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per ThePaintedOne and NtheP. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Willrocks10, I will attempt to explain where you are going wrong with article creation and what you can do to change this. One thing that Wikipedia counts on for its reputation is some degree of reliability. A lot of people think that if they add their bit of local knowledge to Wikipedia, this will be permanently added and built on. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. There is no knowing who is accurate, who is mistaken, and who is making things up. This is why we need information in pages to be verifiable by being referenced to third-party reliable sources.
 * And this is the recurring problem with your articles - very little of the information you are providing is easily verifiable. A lot of people have the idea that Wikipedia is a good place to add information not available anywhere else on the Web, but that's almost the opposite of what Wikipedia is for - Wikipedia summarises information about buildings/people/companies already published in reliable sources (although not necessarily Web ones). You will have to make a decision. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you will need to read the notability guidelines, starting with this one. This may mean you will have to contribute to different articles than you originally intended. If, however, you want to contribute your own information about your preferred buildings and don't want to be restricted to what's covered in reliable sources, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. There are other open wikis that accept articles on everything if that's what you wannt to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic local information. &mdash; RHaworth 20:03, 25 December 2010 (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.