Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Palazzo (Hong Kong)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Palazzo (Hong Kong)

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

fails WP:N, sources are primary from the developer and estate agent listings. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search turned up mostly classified listings. The page was DEPRODed in 2009 by IP editor with reason being that "notability not Dubious", with no further notable info since. Michaela den (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fo Tan or a new Private housing estates in Sha Tin District article. olivier (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, unless there's a hidden stash of non-English references someplace. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this gets deleted, then it will set a precedent for most/all of Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles to be deleted. Dengero (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Caribbean Coast has been quietly deleted without discussion. olivier (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if those Private housing estate of Hong Kong articles are notable per WP:N as a standalone article then they will not be deleted but if they are not then they ought to be deleted.--Michaela den (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So merging is not an option? just erase all the content? olivier (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A table summarizing them in Private housing estate seems like a good way to preserve this content. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N for lack of references to third party coverage. Sandstein 05:23, 1 September 2011 (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.