Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quay Valley, California


 * 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.The subject of the article clearly meet WP:GNG. Promotional tone has no effect on the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quay Valley, California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to the article, Planned as the largest new town in California, as of April 2010, the Quay Valley project was tied up in litigation over water rights and it is unknown if the project will move forward. The described project was put on hold in 2008 and has not come closer towards construction since then. Sentences like "The project would comprise 25,000 dwelling units that would house 75,000 people, plus themed resort hotels and restaurants, a business park and university research park, restored wetland habitat, trails for nature walks and agriculture in a combination described as the "new ruralism."" sound as if they were taken out of an advertisment that is trying to attract investors. I contest the notability of the subject as there is nothing that distinguishes it from thousands of other real estate projects that have not been realized. Rolledleaves78cd (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Rolledleaves78cd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 26.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

To Rolledleaves78cd, as the person who posted that sentence I can tell you that the language came from news media articles, 3 of which are cited, and not from an advertisement trying to attract investors. Armona (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples include, , , , , , . N ORTH A MERICA 1000 02:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I found this article to be very useful and informative after seeing a reference to Quay Valley in an article today (Feb. 27th, 2015).
 * Here is the link to the article:


 * http://machineslikeus.com/news/first-full-scale-urban-hyperloop-system-planned-california


 * I vote to keep this article and continue to update it. photojack53 Photojack53 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I agree with photojack53. The towl was referenced in a Wired article today --EvanCortens (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is not temporary. As Northamerica1000 showed, this article has reached a level of significant, non-trivial coverage so that it does meet WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP - This is a timely and significant article due to the new application that was submitted in February 2015. Armona (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I also found this article informative when searching for info about Quay Valley mentioned in Polish newspaper. Majkelx (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP - If the language in this article is questionable, that's not reason to delete the whole thing. Simply change the language (while preserving the information) so that it may sound less like an ad and more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmund (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - I'm puzzled by the presence of accounts on both sides of this discussion that have few or no edits outside this article or this nomination. The proposer, for example, created the account and then immediately made this proposal. What's going on? --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:58, 5 March 2015 (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.