Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothlórien Co-op (2nd nomination)

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. Aksi_great (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lothlórien Co-op

Lothlórien Co-op (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - this is the second AfD for this article, the first is here and was closed with a keep. Many of the voices in favor of keeping were so in favor on the basis of what the article could possibly become. However, in the intervening two months there has been no substantive effort to improve the article beyond cosmetic wikilinking. There are no reliable sources for the article to satisfy WP:V concerns. The sources consist of the co-op's own webpage along with its myspace page and assorted directory pages. The article has been tagged as reading like an advertisement for months and it still does. I also believe that one or more of the people arguing for keep the last time are heavily involved in the Madison co-op housing scene. I'm not sure how relevant that is to the discussion but since it is a potential bias I thought it reasonable to mention. Otto4711 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:LOCAL says that If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. Most of the information in the article reeks of original research, especially the stuff about life inside the building. Furthermore, as the article has no sources, the article fails to satisfy verifiability requirements, which are non-negotiable. - Chardish 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I felt like the past AfD was wrongly kept and did not take into account the sock/meatpuppetry single purpose accounts. At best it should have garnered a no consensus. I didn't provide nearly as nice of a deletion justification last time as Otto4771 did, so kudos to him. Failing WP:RS is the major point, but it also fails WP:ORG and is very POV heavy. IronGargoyle 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I do want to point out that I'm not suggesting those in favor of keeping were doing anything wrong and I make no suggestion of sock puppetry. Otto4711 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete NN--even their elaborate description how just what they mean by began is not particularly unusual.DGG 08:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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.