Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodgrove Retirement Village


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Woodgrove Retirement Village

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of notability per the sources presented, the creator disruptively moved the page back to namespace, so I couldn't draftify it again. zoglophie •talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. zoglophie •talk•  10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing of any notability here. Sources are purely promotional and simple listings . No RSs. Searches found nothing better. Paid for editing ? Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional). But, please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion. It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified. You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion. This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved". But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites. zoglophie •talk• 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * fair enough! Elemimele (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Really just a housing development, we delete those all the time.James.folsom (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Housing developments are essentially businesses rather than municipalities, and need to pass WP:NBUSINESS. We have no evidence that this one does. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of notability, sources are nothing more than directory listings and churnalism. -- Kinu t/<i style="color:red">c</i> 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources present or found to establish notability. Toadette  ( Let's discuss together! ) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence it passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG more broadly, or WP:NBUSINESS. Specifically, it fails my longstanding standards for estates of this type, because its far too small to be per se notable. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.