Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornubia City


 * 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 keep.  So Why  07:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Cornubia City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a construction project. Fails [{WP:GNG]]. - MrX 12:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Per WP:GEOLAND and recent removal of promotional material. 11:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC) - a poorly sourced, proposed project looking for promotional avenues. Atsme 📞📧 14:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Construction project. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unclear how the phrase "construction project" could qualify this article for deletion from the encyclopedia. North America1000 01:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, looks like WP:TOOSOON, maybe notable in a couple of years.Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per GEOLAND. As a construction project, I agree that it wouldn't meet notability standards.  As a populated place, I believe it does.  See, for example,, subscription required, and .  Some of the housing was completed as long ago as 2014.  The article should be completely rewritten. --Bejnar (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - I agree in part,, but our job is not to "predict" what the current article could be/should be/would be, but rather what it is now. Quite simply it doesn't not pass GNG as a promotion piece. If the article creator wants to write a different article about the location itself per your comment that it should be completely rewritten, then whoever submitted it should start over from scratch going through our customary AfC process. Creating a new article from an article that fails GNG should not be the job of our volunteers. For the good of editor retention, and to protect the quality of WP articles and the integrity of the encyclopedia, we should be warding off promotional pieces and denying publication of those articles that clearly do not meet GNG rather than encouraging the practice by allowing them into mainspace with hopes they'll be rewritten. All that does is encourage more of the same. Atsme 📞📧 16:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the revised lead. I do not believe that that reflects a promotional piece, and I found a fair number of independent sources, as well as reliable. albeit not independent, municipal sources.  If you wish to delete the remainder of the article, or those portions that you perceive as "promotional" please do so.  Writing the Wikipedia is a cooperative project. This passes GEOLAND. --Bejnar (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition see the policy at WP:ATD : If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, the revisions made a difference, and with the completed residential development and school, it passes per WP:GEOLAND. However, I did just nominate the Cornubia Shopping Mall for AfD as it is a commercial promotion and part of the projected 30-year development project. Atsme 📞📧11:14, 6 July 2017‎ (UTC)
 * I still see no evidence of notability. Others have cited WP:GEOLAND, but for a subdivision, the notability guideline defaults back to WP:GNG. I would want to see at least three independent sources that have written feature articles on the subject. So far we have a newsletter, and tech news/advertising website, and the developer's website.- MrX 11:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - Hi, - I found a description (government source) of the development which states: "eThekwini Municipality is the primary developer for the low-income and subsidized housing, as the development is a state initiative."  We'll be seeing more articles like this this one which should satisfy the citing of 3rd party independent sources.  I did find some secondary sources like this article which is published by Business Media Mags which is a Times Media Portal.  Colliers International thought it notable enough to feature it in their "Featured Industrial Developments" report, and there's also this article in Estate Living, "which communicates the value of residential community living in South Africa to a domestic and foreign market."  There are other similar articles, so I'm of the mind that Cornubia "is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" per GNG. I'm also thinking a name change to Cornubia Settlement Project (short for Cornubia Integrated Human Settlement) may be more appropriate than Cornubia City since it is not officially a city and the title is misleading. Atsme 📞📧 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, those additional sources do seem to move the needle toward keep.- MrX 17:43, 12 July 2017 (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.