Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Central Park - Master Planned Community

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. Consensus that the article is both not notable but is also excessively promotional (whether to the tune of a CSD or WP:DEL#REASON#4 is neither here nor there. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Central Park - Master Planned Community

[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)

Cannot see why this is notable; all souces self-published or local (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Suburban subdivisions are not notable. The article only has one reliable source (Houston Business Journal), but the coverage isn't noteworthy. Sounder Bruce 06:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only argument I can make for keeping this is to keep it around as a poster child for articles which fail WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 07:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. If this isn't spam, I don't know what would be. We are a charity, not a free advertising space for a for-profit housing development for the wealthy in Texas. Created by a SPA, this person knows what they are doing, and has only edited articles about two planned communities in suburbs of the Houston, Texas area, and with primary sources not otherwise publicly available. Even discounting the apparent COI, this fails my long-standing standards for housing developments and our general notability standards for lack of significant coverage. If there were to be a work-site construction accident, that might actually be enough to keep it. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable subdivision and promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM that doesn't look salvageable for notability at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This should have been G11'd (as absurdly promotional!) instead of coming to AfD, but as this is about to close, I will not tag it G11 and simply let this delete it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:00, 10 January 2020 (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.