Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerville Ecovillage

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. Neil ☎ 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somerville Ecovillage

Somerville Ecovillage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The original version of this page was a copyvio. After removing that text, there's not much left. What's there reads like an advert. With the notability issues as well, I'd say delete. delldot talk 09:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I was intending on nominating this for deletion myself on its (lack of) notability, but hadn't got round to it. My curiosity a few weeks back made me take a drive out there, and I can report that the site is a vacant paddock, and despite the impression given in the article, it is a planned community only. The editor has done well to find several mentions of it in the media, but this does not hide that fact that the so-called village is at this time just not there. I agree with the nominator that the article reads like (and lets be honest, is) an advert. —Moondyne 09:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Moondyne. In addition, any article that repeatedly includes the ™ symbol after its subject's name is automatically suspect. Deor 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this reduced article should be incorporated into the Chidlow article. The subject this article and the deleted article silver tree school in parkerville are part of the same social set - they have appear to have no idea that this is an online encylopedia and not an advertising service SatuSuro 05:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Keep - Agree that this article is no good as it stands. The problem, though, is that there is quite an obstacle to claiming that it fails WP:N, as it is relatively well sourced. Maybe WP:CRYSTAL would be a more appropriate policy to invoke, then again, maybe not. No more bongos 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) In retrospect I can't see a valid deletion rationale at all, above comments appear to be part-based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No more bongos 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as there is no identifiable reason to delete. Bearian 00:13, 13 November 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.