Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedic City, Iowa

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:08Z

[edit] Vedic City, Iowa

Vedic City, Iowa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Is this truly an incorporated location? --prev. speedy by other ed.,but I think discussion needed DGG 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: I can't find any significant census information on it, there are no independent sources given, there is no assertion of notability, there is but a single link to promotional site, the zip code is that of Fairfield, and the article reads very much like something that should be deleted under CSD G11. Even if the area is incorporated, it doesn't satisfy WP:V, and is part of a large group of spam-like articles promoting Transcendental Meditation created by a variety of editors with significant COI issues (some are actually paid by Maharishi's university). --Philosophus T 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: AfD nominations are great for motivating people to find proper sources. --Philosophus T 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems more like a religious community than a city. Though I generally think cities are notable, it does not strike me that this should be considered as a city. One thinks of a city, especially in the United States, as a public institution, but this community seems to operate under private control judging by their adherence to specific religious mores. If the article is kept, the distiction needs to be clarified and the city related tags and categories removed. Deranged bulbasaur 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's listed by the Iowa League of Cities[1], the Des Moines Register calls it a city [2], the city of Fairfield (of which Maharishi Vedic City is a suburb), says it was incorporated in 2001 [3]... also, there couldn't be census information yet, as the census was in 2000, and the city wasn't incorporated until 2001. -- Jake 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In defense of my earlier comment, those sources seem to be using the colloquial meaning of city. If I am wrong and it is a city in the legal sense, meriting all the categorization and appurtenances of a city on wikipedia, count me baffled that "All of Vedic City follows a certain system - a lifestyle laid out by the Maharishi that combines Transcendental Meditation and specific architectural principles" per the Desmoines Register link. Deranged bulbasaur 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a city in the legal sense. Also, mandatory architectural styles for cities aren't that unusual - Taos, New Mexico has them, for example. You're not alone if finding it weird, though. -- Jake 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • What about mandatory lifestyles of trancendental meditation? Deranged bulbasaur 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jake. It's listed in a few documents on the US Census Bureau site such as here (pop. 85). According to the document, the count is given for "governmental units" that have made formal requests. It also seems to be a recognized postal designation. Chicago Tribune story. The State of Iowa recognizes it as a city with a website. So I'd say yes. By the way, "city" is defined by statute, not by size.--Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The route to incorporation appears to have been by petition to a state agency of the property owner/s, per the NYT[4], followed by a referendum. (More detail.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I noted below, this is very much about WP:V and WP:RS problems, not an issue of whether or not it is a city. The article is currently an advertisement, and contains no independent reliable sources. --Philosophus T 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify that. It was an article with no independent reliable sources. Thanks Dhartung! --Philosophus T 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I note that incorporation is not required, and plenty of non-incorporated named communities have Wikipedia articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed -- census-designated places are notable. But we also need to ensure it's an actual city for category etc. purposes.--Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Err, the requirement is that it satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV; that doesn't depend on whether the community is incorporated. What do we do if there is a census-designated place with no reliable sources about it? The article is currently an advertisement that uses a single, non-independent, unreliable source. Luckily, it appears there are other sources. But please list these, so that they can be used as the basis for the article rather than the advertisement. --Philosophus T 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How could we have a CDP that has no reliable source? They're designated by the census, by definition, and the census is as reliable a source as we'll ever have... -- Jake 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a CDP that wasn't around during the last census, so it appears that the census has hardly any information on it. --Philosophus T 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maharishi Vedic City has received quite a bit of national press coverage, including articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post.[5]. TimidGuy 12:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a real, incorporated city, and all incorporated cities are inherently notable. ObtuseAngle 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jake's research. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I concur with earlier supporting comments. Adm58 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the source Jake posted here, says it all--JForget 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep inherently notable, as long as it's not a WP:HOAX (google maps/satellite and census ensure so). /Blaxthos 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, the misinterpretations that are possible. I would have imagined fancruft associated with Star Trek Deep Space Nine use of 'vedic' to describe a Bajoran religious. Instead, it is simply both derived from Sanskrit? (sigh) Shenme 03:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm a lifelong Iowa resident and can testify that Vedic City is not a hoax. Jake's research is very compelling. Also I found a "Vedic City" section on the Fairfield Iowa Convention and Visitors Bureau website that confirms many of the basic facts about Vedic City. http://www.travelfairfieldiowa.com/vediccity --Smiller933 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • When referring to Jake's research, I forgot to also acknowledge Dhartung's contributions -- the 2005 Census document is very compelling for Keeping this article, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smiller933 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep per Jake and Dhartung. Real place. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 22:07, 6 March 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.