Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towamencin Township Strategic Plan

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 Delete. Xoloz 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Towamencin Township Strategic Plan

Towamencin Township Strategic Plan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • This article is a township's plan for future development, as created by a committee and posted to Wikipedia. According to the the creator, on the talk page, the committee created it original for Wikipedia as an example for other townships looking to create a plan. While well-intentioned, it is in violation of several policies and guidelines. Firstly, as an original creation of the committee, it is unverifiable and consists of original research. Second, it contains no references for any of the current information (some of the historical info has a source). Lastly, it is an example of Wikipedia being used as a webhost, which Wikipedia is not. This is probably a simple misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, but the creator has not shown any interest in reworking the article despite my concerns. Leebo T/C 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. We're not a web host. /Blaxthos 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails several sections of WP:NOT. Deor 14:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see the comment that the article creator left on this discussion's talk page. Leebo T/C 15:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest this as something that would go on a site that is meant to include primary documents. FrozenPurpleCube 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of the material is worth including in Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania (and I think it might already be there), but the stated goal of providing a strategic plan for others to emulate isn't the same goal as Wikipedia. Delete this article, and consider telling the article creator that there are probably better places to discuss strategic planning on the township level. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails several sections of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. As the creator seems perplexed by our motivation, I suggest The Five Pillars of Wikipedia as a starting point. It's flattering that we're seen as a platform for a project of this type, but really, that's something best done through other avenues. There are in fact professional community planning magazines, for starters. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability for this. Would anyone outside this town care about this? It looks like this is a presentation of some kind Corpx 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was a collaborative effort of a committee over a five month period. The source was their collective minds and hearts. If you read the article, you will find that those committee members are listed in the article. They are the source, as the article states; “The Board of Supervisors expresses their appreciation and thanks to the residents who volunteered their time and effort in the development of this plan. The fact that there is no existing Five-Year Strategic Plan Template for a Pennsylvania township made the task that much more challenging.” As they hunted around looking for examples to follow little to none was found; especially here on Wikipedia. The web is full of verbiage as to what a strategic plan can be, but no examples of what it should be for a second class Pennsylvania township. It is the hope that this article may serve as that template for other townships struggling to develop their own strategic plan, and that it will become a reference article to Wikipedia's article "Strategic Planning". To have a proper example, they need "the" proper example. There is no expectation that it will be copied; only emulated. All the source and reference information can be found in the Executive Summary. As for the tone and style of this article, it "exists" as it is, and it is what it is. Thank you.

  • leebo's comments about the, as he puts it, creator, are not true. Obviously he like the rest of you delete freeks do not understand the relevance of this article. If you would apply his standard to all his articles, they would all be deleted, and perhaps should be.

Ailde 11:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please do not use personal attacks such as "delete freaks". Also, if you would like to explain how my comments are not true, that would be more constructive than the blunt accusation. I understand the "significance" of the plan for other townships, but this is not relevant to its standing as a Wikipedia article. Leebo T/C 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - article is by definition, original research. -- Whpq 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it looks like I misunderstood what I was dealing with here. This is not a web encyclopedia; it is some sort of club. By all means don't wait delete the article. If I could do it myself, I would do it right now. Again I heartily request any and all administrators, delete this article now, I request it, do it immediately. I will take it elsewhere.

Ailde 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Ailde, can you at least let us know if you understand the reasons why this isn't encyclopedia material? We have policies about no original research and verifiability. Have you read those? The article violates both. Throughout this process, you haven't tried to address any of those problems, instead accusing the users and myself of banding against you. Leebo T/C 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read everything and I do mean everything and have a different prospective. Again I heartily request any and all administrators, delete this article now, I request it, do it immediately. I will take it elsewhere. And for the record, not users Leebo, just you.

Ailde 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment If another administrator sees this discussion, it may be closed as an author's request speedy deletion. I'll let someone else handle the actual deletion. Leebo T/C 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 September 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.