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 some. Consensus to delete all but the first. v/r - TP 01:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Living senior housing project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A new user seems to be on an advertising rampage for planned senior housing projects in Hong Kong. None of these articles are referenced, and none appear to exist at this point (they all appear to be only in planning stages). None are notable. This nomination includes four articles total:

• Joyous Living senior housing project
• North Point Tanner Hill senior housing site
• Tin Shui Wai Wetland Road senior housing site
• Tin Shui Wai Wetland Park Road senior housing site

—SW— ^express 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first and second ones. Merge the third and the forth ones into the first one. The second one is probably more notable than the others since the site was formerly another public housing estate. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sock[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 22 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none are referenced, from a quick read there appears to be overlap on the subject matter. No use in relisting these, toss them and when referenced material exists someone will re-write them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Keep the first one. Delete or redirect #2, 3, 4, which I have merged into the 1st. The 3rd one is exactly the same as the 4th, just with wrong title. This is pretty much Hong Kong's first wealthy retirement community project and it is generating a debate, mostly in Chinese, though. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first, with the others as redirect, per Underwaterbuffalo's explanation. I usually say delete with articles on housing project, but this is ufficiently notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 8 March 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.