Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Palais Royal


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Le Palais Royal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I previously proposed speedy deletion of this article on Feb 25 2018, which was carried out under G11. The article was subsequently restored but no justification was provided. While the promotional content has since been removed, what remains is...not much, and I am proposing its deletion per Notability. It seems the only notable aspect of this property was the very high sale value the owner claimed for it; this has since been disproved by the dramatically lower recent sale price (less than a third of the inflated value originally claimed). I would argue the claimed value of this property was only a promotional strategy (as was the entirety of the original content of this article). Absent the promotional language the article is now a poor-quality stub, and there does not seem to be anything else notable one could say about it which would allow it to become a quality article. As such I am again proposing its deletion. Walkersam (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walkersam (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Walkersam (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge are good option for this Article. I watched the Article, and I think it could not exist like this, but I think merging the Article in Florida or a relevant article is better option for it.Forest90 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV and the article is realistically no more notable now then when it was deleted the first time. It's just been exposed as a marketing gimmick since then, which further undermines this articles place on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2019 (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.