Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn Community

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep 8 - Delete 4 = Merge 2 -> Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Acorn Community
It's a commune of "less than 20" somewhere in backwoods Virginia. Delete. Postdlf 05:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. Xezbeth  06:37, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Settlements are inherently notable, even "somewhere in backwoods"; especially "somewhere in backwoods". It is an offspring of Twin Oaks, hence growing, not dwingling. Mikkalai 07:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A Commune (intentional community) founded in the United States in the 1990s is rare and likely to be intriguing, and this one is. If they had even fewer people, but a municipal charter, they'd automatically be notable, and yet they're far more socially, economically and psychologically distinct than just another municipality. There's enough culture in this place that this former member comments on life in its gay minority! It is "daughter community" of Twin Oaks, a highly notable and historic commune close by whose article indeed references Acorn Community in its article. The dismissive "somewhere in backwoods Virginia" tweaks me uncomfortably, as it sounds like systemic bias. Samaritan 07:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable settlement [Personal attack removed].--Centauri 11:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I found a Website for the commune, and while it seems well-enough established, I'm not sure that it really rises to the level of encyclopedic notability in and of itself. However, in this day and age the idea that any communes at all would thrive is interesting to me.  I would support creating an article about well-established communes that are functioning modern-day.  Maybe even just expand Commune (intentional community). Katefan0 19:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to take on the task of creating Thriving intentional communities or such as that, I'd think this would be a good one to include. But as the page stands I don't think it's inherently encyclopedic enough to warrant keeping it. Delete in current form. Katefan0 21:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 20:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;I didn't find anything online about it that wasn't written by its participants. What is the evidence that this particular one is notable?  And yes, a municipality of fewer people would be notable, because as a municipality it would have official government recognition, a listing in the census, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to pass laws.  Municipalities, even small ones, therefore necessarily have an impact and notability beyond the people who live in them, and are verifiable beyond what the residents say about it.  What impact has this had outside of the less than 20 who live there, and how would we verify anything about it without any external sources?  I might change my mind if we could get some outside information.  (p.s., I live in Virginia) Postdlf 20:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neutral. Could it maybe be merged into Twin Oaks? As it stands, it's a bit ad-copy-ish. There may be an article worth having, but this isn't it yet. I can think of 20 intentional communities I've known, at least approximately this size and of many years duration (though not all survive). In general, I wouldn't consider them worthy of individual encyclopedia entries. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:09, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup and expand. Let's hear more about the "rocky history" and the differences with Twin Oaks. I'm sure there's an interesting article here somewhere. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  I can't imagine how anybody can think this is remotely encyclopedic.  RickK 00:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I wont dispute that some communes are notable, however Acorn Community just isnt that noteworthy from others that would warrant an individual article. Apart from the description of the commune, the article itself does not establish notability. Megan1967 01:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Gamaliel 01:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on established cities with less than 10 people; communes are rare these days; and this one gets around 700 Google hits (for "Acorn Community" Virginia), so it appears to be for real.  As GeorgeStepanek indicated, let's see what sort of potential can come from this article.  --Idont Havaname 02:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. I don't see how an intentional community can be inherently notable. JoaoRicardo 05:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, keep it for now to see if it expands.
 * Above vote was by User:ShaunMacPherson. --Idont Havaname 18:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This document is notable and encyclopedic.  GRider\talk 18:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Twin Oaks and redirect HowardB 06:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)