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. In spite of the attempts to source it the consensus here indicates that the subject is insufficiently notable to merit inclusion. Shereth 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Creek, Olathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable subdivision, utterly identical to every other affluent subdivision in every other suburb of every other city. PROD proposed sometime last year but removed and forgotten. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added content from two sources to show this is not "utterly identical to every other affluent subdivision in every other suburb of every other city". This should also, combined with looking at the news search results, show this topic meets WP:N. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. No different than the other "high-end" subdivisions in the area or the thousands like it around the country. Ryan2845 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thousands of other high-end subdivisions were founded in 1989 on a 4,500 master plan and sold to new owners in 2006, prompting a dispute? Your argument doesn't appear to be based on any policy or guideline. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are those facts unique to this neighborhood? Probably. Do they establish enough notability to make it worthy of being on wikipedia? Definitely not. Please see Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill which states "Apartment complexes, housing developments, and trailer parks, even though there are some GHits about each one, and they are often displayed on maps, are not notable on this basis." Ryan2845 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You initially claimed this development was "No different" than any other. The page you link to is an essay... I'm talking about guidelines and policies that support support inclusion of this article. At any rate, your essay says "there must be sources provided other than those that can be used to verify the existence of millions of others" and I have provided those sources - newspaper articles written specifically about this development, not the sort of database and census records that merely verify the existence of thousands of things. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, all of the news articles/sources you linked come from either source The Kansas City Star or Olathe Daily News, which implies to me that it is only notable locally. Even if we keep it now it would be subject to deletion under proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) if it is adopted, which references the Run-of-the-mill essay. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing saying the sources have to be national in scope, even in the run-of-the-mill essay (which is still an essay and only vaguely relevant here compared to policies like WP:V). We can write an accurate, referenced article here... I don't see what the downside is here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) and the run-of-the-mill essay are written by the same person. Anyone can write a policy proposal or an essay... there's no evidence there's much consensus behind either of these things. I've encountered the essay writer in another AFD which he took to DRV, and he's finding no support at all for his ideas there. I really don't think his little group of essays are very compelling evidence. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete besides being non-unique the page reads like an advertisement, discussing Cedar Creeks amenities. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plaza Hotel and thousands of other articles doubtlessly discuss amenities - should we delete them too? Again this argument mentions no policy-based reason for deleting this page. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS rarely changes peoples minds. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to essays robotically rarely changes people's minds... what is the actual defense for deleting an article because it talks about nice things the subject of the article offers? There is no defense because it's a bad idea. What you miss is the part of the essay you link to that says "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you really think articles like the Plaza Hotel could be deleted because they mention amenities... feel free to prove me wrong... but they couldn't be, and the fact that they couldn't be proves my point: a few sentences of pseudoadvertising is a reason to edit the article, not delete it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I "robotically" did it, your comment might be relevent. But trying to attack me for pointing out that your attempt to defend keeping the article is to say "this one exists" is something that community consensus finds unacceptable, simply doesn't work. Further, I dismissed your particular comment, not all the other ones you've made in this AfD. While you are reading the essay, you might want to think about how it applies. You want a good, policy based reason for deleting it? WP:N. There you go. Enjoy. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N blatantly doesn't support deleting this article... WP:N asks for multiple instances of non-trivial coverage, and I've shown that it exists. So by mentioning WP:N, not a policy but a guideline by the way, you're mentioning something that supports keeping this article, not deleting it... so you're exactly wrong. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is your opinion that I am wrong. It is not a fact. Just like your interpretation of WP:N is an opinion. When you get comfortable with difference between fact and opinion, then I'll consider moving on to the difference between "significant" coverage versus trivial coverage. Until then, my opinion stands unchanged. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My interpretation is that WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" and I have found several such articles about the subject, so it therefore meets WP:N. You have yet to provide a reason why my interpretation is wrong, you've just said you disagree... which is basically a pointless comment to make. You need to give a reason. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have given my reason. I don't find the coverage to be significant. You've shown nothing that changes my mind about that. That is my opinion. I see no point in continuing this pointless bickering with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You've given no reason why 2,000+ results on Google news and 2 cited sources in the article about the topic are not significant coverage. Therefore, I don't really see how your comment can be given any weight. You're just saying "nuh uh" with no argument why... --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2009 (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.