Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herston Quarter (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to Herston, Queensland. Selectively.  Sandstein  18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herston Quarter

AfDs for this article:
Herston Quarter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a real estate development project that has been flagged for WP:NGEO for two months. While there are some secondary references, they are mainly from the architectural press, or local media behind a paywall making them impossible to verify. While the article was created by a WP:SPA in good faith, it should be noted that User:Elliot Duff seems to be involved with the local residents group [1] which may explain some of the political bias in the lead. At best, this article needs a complete rewrite, but I'm loathe to do anything other than a half-assed job if its going to fail AfD anyway. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having come from Brisbane myself and having a general familiarity with the area, I can say that this is almost certainly going to have political interest, but I do not think that the article has any hard POV at this time. Rather than the soft possible OUTING above, it might have been better to approach the author with COI advice on their talk page? Aoziwe (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the 3 sources i listed above do not mention any "objections" (may or may not be "routine", a subjective term), btw the precint includes a number of heritage-listed buildings, already in wp, here and here. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. G11. This is not an encyclopedia article. It's a promo brochure. Even IF found sources above are good this needs TNT. Contrary to claim made when removing a speedy tag, a Keep !vote here does not make G11 inapplicable. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Herston, Queensland. Looking back from 2030, we would look at this article and wonder why it is not just part of the article about the suburb it is in. At the moment, the suburb article does not appear to have anything about the redevelopment, which seems odd for a major (re-)development. This content also needs a major cleanup to remove the inline external links, standardise the citation format and write paragraphs instead of bullet lists. the core of the content appears notable enough for inclusion somewhere, but it appears unlikely that Herston Quarter will be created a new suburb requiring separation of the content along exactly the current article boundary, so I see no need to retain a separate article. --Scott Davis Talk 00:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Herston, Queensland, as ScottDavis well details why. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thanks, yes I obviously do some advice - this is my first page, and I have tried to make the page as objective as possible. But I am confused by the comment about political bias. Could someone point me to the text that reflects the political bias? Is the page, for or against the development? As to the issue of the media pages being behind a pay wall - this was not the case when I created the page, so I will try and find a solution. As to inline references, I will fix this up ASAP. As to the issue of not enough coverage, this is just the start. The development plans have yet to be approved. The Herston Quarter development will last at least 10 years, and as information comes to hand, I (or others) can publish. As to the issue of merge, then someone could equally argue that it should be merged with the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. And can someone explain what G11 refers to? Elliot Duff (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a closer look at some of these arguments (in particular about the merge), I believe I made a mistake with the category (sorry this is new to me). It appears that I should have made the category: Proposed buildings and structures in Australia. This is more aligned with the intended content of the page (it is about proposed buildings and structures), and would align with the Queen's Wharf, Brisbane development. 13:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot Duff (talk • contribs)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herston_Quarter_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077967229"