Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wimbledon Estates


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wimbledon Estates

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason Non notable housing complex in suburban Houston. --Seascic T/C 01:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, reads like a brochure for the complex. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability is neither established nor even asserted. Frank  |  talk  12:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dhartung. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete - No notability asserted, promotional in tone, no secondary (or any) sources for the content, and the likeliness that some of the work is copied from the website for this estate means this should be a perfect candidate for the speedy deletion. G11 criterion. Rud  get  14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends - what do you think it is promoting? I don't see an entity that it is promoting.  If you remove the capitalised "E", it reads like a housing estate to me.  Certainly, there doesn' seem to be any promotional aspect.  I think notability is unasserted, and I think it should be deleted as a result, but there is no speedy delete here that I can see Fritzpoll (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It rests with how you can interpret "Wimbledon Estates, Wimbledon Forest, and Wimbledon Champions share a swimming pool along with the luxurious clubhouse located along Cypresswood. There is no fee, but registration cards are available to those who want to access the features". That could be viewed as promotion or observation of current practices; mine being the former. Rud  get  14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but I think it's ambiguous enough to let the AfD ride out. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to deletion per, as you say, the ambiguous nature of the work. Rud  get  14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory or a guidebook. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to establish notability and potential breach of WP:NOT. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable or sourced.  MBisanz  talk 13:02, 31 July 2008 (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.