Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Develop don't destroy brooklyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 though a merge is strongly suggested - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Develop don't destroy brooklyn

Spam, loaded with POV, probably cut and pasted from a press release or website. Artw 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with modification. The topic seems notable, but obviously needs to be massively overhauled, preferably by a different author. Cmcl14 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: User's 9th edit. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, "DDDB is a volunteer-run organization. We have over 5,000 subscribers to our email newsletter, 6,000 petition signers, and a nine-person steering committee." Sounds pretty local, I'd like to see some news coverage or something. Recury 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Keep per joturn. I'm going to stubify it though because the current version is pretty awful. Also, the article should be moved to correct the capitalization after the afd is finished. Recury 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is very poorly written, but the project looks notable to me. It's appears to be an important organization in New York City that has been mentioned in thirteen different articles in The New York Times. joturner 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedically notable as an organization. Mention of local protests against development may be noted in the Brooklyn Nets Arena article but there's no evidence that this organization is significant enough in its own right for its own article or even inclusion in the Nets Arena article. Many New York Times articles are not encyclopedically notable (as with almost all major news media channels) and so not a completely reliable indicator of significance. This is even more true of local interest stories which appear in the New York Times' Metro and New York Region sections as the stories on this organization do - the New York Times is not just a national or international newspaper, its also a local New York City newspaper covering stories only of local interest. Bwithh 19:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per Bwith's logic. JoshuaZ 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Changing my opinion to keep and rename following Kmf164's logic below. JoshuaZ 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I am actually not opposed to this becoming a Redirect to one or other of the foregoing articles. When the article was AfD'ed it was pure spam. It's now a stub that, alone, isn't ever going to say anything that can't be said in those other articles IMO. As a standalone article it doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG (activities are local in scope, and see the example case cited on that proposed policy page), so I cannot go with Keep. --DaveG12345 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Brooklyn Nets Arena and/or New Jersey Nets#Planned Relocation to Brooklyn; however, I strongly disagree with the idea that local notability is insufficient to make a subject worthy of an article in Wikipedia. One of the main arguments advanced in favor of deleting non-notable articles, as mentioned in Wikipedia:notability, is that non-notable articles don't attract people who would care to check its accuracy or NPOV. However, if something is truly locally notable, then I would expect there to be plenty of willing editors. 68.50.203.109 08:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to a parent article. Does not appear to be a nationally notable organization, see WP:ORG. If kept, move to correct capitalization. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. While the original version of the article was spammy, it has been stubified. The organization seems notable. With 29,000+ google hits, there are sufficient third-party reliable sources such as the NY Times, Business Week, and local newspapers, such as the NY Daily News. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:17, 13 July 2006 (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.