Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Park (2nd nomination)

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. —Cryptic 04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vijay Park

Vijay Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This short stub has survived a deletion discussion in April 2004 (!) and has been unexpanded ever since. It is about a residential complex within a metropolis in India, consisting of 30 buildings the talk page says. Needless to mention, no secondary sources are given. Although I haven't been here that long, I think that consensus has changed since 2004, and we can delete the article by now. --B. Wolterding 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't qualify to be a stub. Also, per nom (NN). - Rjd0060 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided: Where do I find the relevant WP policy (e.g. minimum size/age for articles about places)? Jorge Stolfi 22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a specific policy about places; it's WP:N that applies, so we would need substantial coverage in secondary sources. So if there are several articles in The Hindu about this place, that might be a reason to keep the article. On the other hand, common sense tells me that we cannot have articles on all (or a substantial portion of) residential comlexes of comparable size, since there must be millions of these. So unless there's something specific about this particular one, it should be removed. --B. Wolterding 14:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Ah, the old "my opinion" == "common sense" trick. Yes people were using those in 2004 too, but fortunately for the growth of the 'pedia, such arguments didn't win. It will this time of course because "consensus can change". Shame we never really succeeded in getting beyond mob rule. The world only loses by deleting this, and Wikipedia only loses by having people spend time thinking about deleting this. Pcb21 Pete 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Did you notice that word #11 in my response is a link to a guideline? --B. Wolterding 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but don't worry yourself. I am fighting battles that have long been lost. You'll get the article deleted, don't worry. Pcb21 Pete 07:18, 9 October 2007 (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.