Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeds Valley Park

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 no consensus. We do not seem to have consensus and there's no point in a 4th relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Valley Park

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

This topic about a business park may be failing WP:N. Google Books only provides passing mentions ([1]), and Google News archive is providing similar results. There are some sources from PropertyWeek.com, (such as [2], [3], [4]), which requires registration to view, but it's unclear if this can be considered as a truly reliable source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, the PropertyWeek articles that the nom linked previews to (here's another - [5]) do seem in themselves to establish notability. It would be a stretch to assume that this development received only a "passing mention" in them. WP:N makes it clear sources are not required to be available online. Also additional sources have given significant coverage to this development, even a foreign one.[6][7] --Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Oakshade. I stated that GBooks and GNews archives only provided passing mentions, sans/separate from the PropertyWeek.com articles, which I don't have access to. Again, it's unclear if PropertyWeek.com is a truly reliable source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I appreciate your provision of the two new sources in your !vote above, and I am considering possible withdrawal of the nomination. However, I'd prefer to wait for other editors to opine for now. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Yorkshire Post has a few articles, mostly passing mentions, but about what you'd expect for a fairly large business park. The Steve 12:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Unless this can be expanded to provide significnat coverage that shows notability, it looks to me like a NN industrial estate, perhaps commercial. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD only requires the existence of significant coverage, not that they must be in the article. WP:AFD states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 21 December 2012 (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.