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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Village at Victoria Park

[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. This is an article about a potential future development that does not yet exist. The article contains no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the development itself. From a Google News search, I did find one press-release type article [1] suggesting that construction has begun. Oddly, the website for the development itself appears to be shut down [2]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom,(Author) it appears to not be up and operating. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like WP:ADVERT for this development. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 23 August 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:30, 29 August 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.