Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easton Park


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 15:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Easton Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed with the thin explanation that it not being built is not sufficient for deleting, but the fact is there's simply nothing else to suggest any notability, here or later; the article is still rather advert-toned and the local sources are simply press talking about this, there's still nothing at all to suggest the needed independent notability. As it is, it's been planned for 4 years now with no actual founding signs of any assumed notability but with only news expectedly talking about a local business venture, there's nothing to accept. SwisterTwister  talk  06:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Austin, Texas, which presently has no mention of this topic, which has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. See sources below. The state of the project (not built) is not aligned with topic notability per WP:GNG. See also WP:NOTBUILT. North America1000 06:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough sources to show this is a significant development in Austin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite rumors to the contrary, this is a real place with real homes -- some of which are occupied by residents. There should be 50-100 occupied homes by the end of the year.  I've added a photo to the article to show this development. Straley (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – I deprodded this in part because the prod rationale stated, "Still too soon considering that, not only has it not been built, but it's nowhere near there. Delete at best for now as independent notability has not been established yet." (diff). In part, I feel that the "delete at best for now" part is inaccurate, because the Austin, Texas article presently has no mention of the topic (other than in the merge template I added), and the topic has received a great deal of significant coverage in Texan sources. As such, "at best" in my opinion extends to at least a merge of the content, as a functional WP:ATD that will improve the merge target article. Also see image at right. North America1000 09:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep under the condition that this article be rewritten so the the subject is actually the 1000 units set aside for low income families (perhaps in conjunction with the other units). It also appears that a number of units are to be slated for mid-level income families. It seems to me, these facts illustrate the significant impact of this project. Not tedious and monotonous promotional details that are not worthy of note.
 * In fact, I think I will try to rewrite this later today. Also, I am willing to bet this can be moved to a more appropriate title (or topic heading) for Wikipedia after this AfD concludes - such as "Easton Park affordable housing" or something like that. I think the current title, as it is, is based on promoting this development more than its significant effect. Also, thanks again to for providing sources that demonstrate notability of topics. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep yes the content may need tweaking and trimming. Slu tsu (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to get back to this as soon as I hoped. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2016 (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.