Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil Nut Bay


 * 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 no consensus. Of note is that the article was rewritten while this AfD discussion was occurring. North America1000 02:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Oil Nut Bay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A clearly promotional article for a proposed residential subdivision. It doesn't seem to actually exist yet, though construction of some of the infrastructure has started. We've been fairly consistent in not generally considering these communities as populated places. There are sources. The sources are press releases, no matter where they've been published--we go by the content for this. called this one to my attention as an example of the sort of promotional editing we may not be able to do anything about, because though it can be assumed to be a paid edit, we have no effective means of determining that. I disagree with him: I hope we do have an effective means, which is right here at AfD,for we can use of own judgment on the likely origin and purpose. There might be notability, but I think this still falls under CRYSTAL. Borderline notability combined with apparent promotionalism is an  good reason for deletion. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Oil Nut Bay offers exclusive guests the safety and seclusion of their own private island plus high end resort amenities and services. One of the world’s most secluded, most comfortable and pristine natural settings with only 88 sites spread across 300 acres, each freehold owned home site has been sculpted to fit seamlessly into Oil Nut Bay’s overall plan— providing enduring, spectacular views for generations while maintaining and preserving the privacy of the natural landscape."
 * Delete - Posted in 1 immaculate edit, this article is blatantly obviously created as a comissioned work and authored by someone with a perfect in-depth knowledge of article creation. It's the kind of article that makes me want to give up volunteering my time and intelligence for Wikipedia. Per : . Let's close the crack in in our door now before Wikipedia totally degenerates into a spam farm . Whether or not the article will convince future clients to check out this billionairs' paradise, the islands developers won't hesitate to mention 'Of course, we're on Wikipedia, don't you know?' for those real estate salespersons it's (what they perceive as) the prestige that counts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Virgin Gorda Delete  [See my comment below] . Per DGG, this is simply an advertorial referenced to other advertorials for a yet to be completed residential development. As of June 2015 "30 lots have been sold [ out of 88 and nine homes have been built"], says the real estate advertorial in the American Airlines in-flight magazine used as a "reference".  According to their own website, the marina is only half built and the "Marina Village" is as yet non-existent. All of the "sources" are press-release based advertorials and real estate ads. They do not remotely attest to sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Observe the obvious advertorial in Forbes used as the main "reference":


 * And this second Forbes "article":

"The next custodian of this meticulously-built property will be one of the lucky few to enjoy the most exclusive location on Virgin Gorda—and arguably anywhere in the Caribbean. Just ask your neighbors Richard Branson and Larry Page. (Full disclosure: My husband and I have worked with Higbie Maxon Agney on previous real estate listings.)"
 * UGH! Wikipedia should not be hosting links to this rubbish, let alone the article itself. Note also the disclaimer under both the Forbes advertorials "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment After the complete refocus of the article by Aymatth2, I agree an argument can be made for keeping this as a geographical feature, but frankly, I don't see why this minimal amount of information and coverage should not be simply included in Virgin Gorda. The coverage of the geographical feature itself in Google books is really very minimal, sentences here and there in the discussion of more general topics. Is it really worthy of a stand-alone article? If it is kept, any mention of the "luxury development" needs to come from completely independent sources, and so far there is zero. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was the one who blanked it and rewrote it as a bay. I'm sure the Virgin Gorda article could be fully expanded. I'm sure we could argue to merge most bay and geo articles into general articles on the area, but that's not what wikipedia is about. We ought to have several articles on bays of the Virgin Islands.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this version. I was not referring to your version which continues to plug the development sourced solely to blatant advertorials, including the highly misleading conflation of the Oil Nut Bay Marina which is still under construction and not even listed at the official BVI tourism website and the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda, which is in North Sound Bay and is not part of Oil Nut Bay development. Not to mention the bizarre claim in the advertorial that private marinas are "rare" in that part of the Caribbean. Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is this place is well documented in reputable publications, even regional journals. You can't possibly claim all information about a resort is an "advert". I have a lot of experience with writing on hotels and resorts and know what is acceptable. If we failed to report this multi million dollar development and marina we'd be censoring wikipedia. A general article on the bay and a paragraph on the development is perfectly acceptable. The reality is that you thought it wreaked of COI and thoroughly disliked the way that it was started, and I agree. But Aymatth and myself have given it an overhaul, I added a bit on the local flora too. This sort of attitude towards the effort of people who try to salvage or improve articles on here is one of the main reasons I'm relunctant to edit much here anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're also wrong about it not being mentioned on the tourism site. It's the marina at the bottom. I have restructured the section to indicate that the marina is to the southwest and not at Oil Bay itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the marina mentioned at the bottom of that list is the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda which is not in Oil Nut Bay. The smaller marina still under construction at Oil Nut Bay is not mentioned on the list. And the sources you used which I consider obvious advertorials as opposed to genuine independent coverage are this and this. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a fair amount of independent coverage of the resort and its impact on the bay, some positive, some negative. An expensive development like this tends to attract attention. Locals complaining about attempts to restrict access to the bay for swimming and fishing, turtles, drunken power boaters, that sort of thing. The potential is there for a larger article, although it would take watching to weed out attempts at advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing minimally acceptable for any convincing notability, this is exactly deletion material, with there being nothing to suggest confidently keeping. SwisterTwister   talk  17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but restart from scratch A look in google books indicates notability. Actually it has long existed as a bay, mentioned in sources from the 1970s but like DGG I'm suspicious about the way it was started though I don't see anything gushing in the article description. We could use a few hotels and resorts in the British Virgin Islands, but not done this way. This though is basically a verifiable geo feature, the type of article we normally keep. The resort info needs to be nuked and rewritten though, the base of the article should really be on on the bay itself. It'll sort it out tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I scrapped some junk about the "exclusive lifestyle community", but the bay exists and there are independent sources that talk about it. The Dream Homes at Oil Nut Bay may be a candidate for a separate article, if the subject can be shown to be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG; there is enough reliable secondary sources to warrant an article. Thanks to the efforts of Blofeld and Aymatth, the article has improved in leaps and bounds. JAG  UAR   16:58, 18 July 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.