Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croydon Vision 2020

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 Croydon. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Vision 2020

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is highly promotional and excessively detailed, and a news search indicates that it simply does not meet the GNG: I find little to no discussion of the "vision" in reliable, major sources. Look at the sourcing in the article--I see local newspapers at best, and the rest is websites, YouTube videos, and most of all a huge amount of primary sourcing. I wonder if User:Selfhurst is still around--I'm not the first one to see these problems. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information in this article is probably best condensed to several paragraphs which could then be included at Croydon#Future. On the other hand, I'd argue that well-established local newspapers can qualify as reliable sources. So if this nomination fails, the article in question could retain such citations and be shortened considerably. Meticulo (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is inline with WP:GNG. Info is also factual Mgbo120 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Meticulo a few condensed paragraphs could easily be merged into the Croydon article but there's no way this is suitable as a standalone article, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt the sources are mainly local to Croydon, but I see others (even a non-English one) [1][2][3][4] and various projects of its developments are also covered, e.g. on the Whitgift development [5][6][7][8]. I believe it should satisfy WP:GNG with the large number of local sources (local sources are not necessarily non-RS) and some of the other sources. If there are parts that sound promotional, it is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue, and AfD should not be used to tidy up article since the article is not unambiguously for promotional purpose only. Hzh (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are sources discussing various specific proposed developments, such as those given by Hzh above. However there are insufficient sources discussing the Croydon Vision 2020 as a whole directly in detail, it is only mentioned in passing.--Pontificalibus 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole book on it - [9]. It is also misleading to call the sources passing mentions, since the mentions are meant to place these projects within the context of the Croydon Vision 2020, and they are therefore detailed coverage of the topic. Hzh (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That book has a sticker on the front that says "High Quality Content by Wikipedia Articles!" and was presumably auto-generated from this article and some other random crap - read about Alphascript Publishing. Secondly, if those articles are meant to place these projects within the context of the Croydon Vision 2020, you'd think they would do so explicitly, which they don't.--Pontificalibus 16:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sticker, but will disregard that book as the publisher is dubious. There are however discussions of the projects in other books, e.g. this one covers a few pages - [10], and [11]. Some the sources I gave do mention that the projects are part of Croydon Vision 2020 - [12][13][14] (there are many more sources covering individual project). Other sources, including academic ones - [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. I have no idea why anyone would think that there would not be coverage for such a major scheme. Hzh (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any important info to Croydon, after that delete. Nightfury 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.