Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selangor Bio 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Selangor Bio Bay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable "hi-tech area" fails WP:NGEOG because its not a natural place (like a pond or creek) or a road. If it is an actual structure, those have to pass GNG (at the least), and this doesn't. There are 4 or 5 news sources, but WIKIISNOT a list of every corporate structure ever. L3X1 (distant write)  02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The nominator is mistaken. The guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, which covers populated places. In this case, it would seem to be a district, and so I believe GNG would apply. Gnews does reveal some articles. Searching for the Malaysian name might yield more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So it appears that this is an actual structure, and thus not covered under GEOLAND. The MY press has 5 or 6 articles on it, but I don't think that is enough to establish notability. In light of 22 Cortlandt St. AfD, I think this sin't going to pass GNg either. L3X1 (distant write)  14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First ping didn't take L3X1  (distant write)  16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is clearly stated to be a "970-acre high-technology area. So it's clearly not a single structure. With all due respect, you should not be nominating articles for deletion without understanding the content. It couldn't be more clear that this is not a single structure, and I'm having trouble understanding why this is unclear to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator is using "structure" to mean something different. Yes, erected populated places -- collections of structures that form districts -- are clearly covered by WP:GEOLAND. But that is besides the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'll do the nominator a service and make his or her case, succinctly. This appears to be a stub on a recently announced planned high-tech business district. It is therefore likely not yet notable, even when local language sources are taken into account, based on what we can find. I have categorized it and added it to Template:Selangor, to get some eyeballs on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a "legally recognised populated place", but rather a commercial development (an office complex). In addition this is WP:TOOSOON with sparse coverage. Delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable commercial development. MB 04:01, 3 April 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.