Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governors Towne Club


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Governors Towne Club

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This club appears to fail notability. The text is still written promotional, as are the supposed references from the Atlanta Journal. The club may be somewhat notable on a local scale but I fail to see the need for an article on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert the notability of the subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The newspaper references are sufficient to establish notability. This thing is bigger and more conspicuous than the average suburban development. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article cites three sources: two are the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's business, arts and recreation section, which appears to be a home for promotional fluff pieces for local enterprises.  Not a reliable source; sections like this often take promotional consideration in return for their articles.  The other source is the RBOC Update, which as best as I can tell is an entirely non-notable publication, though I stand to be corrected.  In any case articles appearing in only two publications I don't believe constitute "significant coverage". - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is close to a Speedy, as the article really doesn't assert notability. But, for all that, look at the coverage - it's all from 2005 and before, when the development was under construction. So, there was very little notable about it then, and nothing since. I'm not finding additional sources, either - so, we should probably delete. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a reliable source. Newspapers of that size don't sell their editorial coverage in exchange for promotional considerations. This showed up as a newspaper article, not as an advertorial. "Significant" refers to the coverage (as opposed to "passing mention"), and even a single newspaper story can be enough to establish notability. RBOC Update may itself be unexciting (it's "a publication providing news and analysis of networking and telecommunications"), but it's editorially independent (and made available to libraries through http://www.accessmylibrary.com/archive/4453-rboc-update.html ) and a reliable source. The RBOC Update article covers the telecommunications infrastructure of the development, so that's part of the significant coverage needed for notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is written like an ad, not like a neighborhood, which might be allowable. Newspaper quotes appear to be from the real estate section, which are just developer hype in exchange for an accompanying ad. While front pages and editorial may not be "for sale", this does not hold true for the real estate section. If prior editor is correct, and material was not in the real estate section, then perhaps the article can be rewritten as a neighborhood and not as an ad. But right now, WP:SPAM does not merit an article IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or rewrite to show why it the neighborhood is notable. MiRroar (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - Not sure why this was relisted, there's a consensus above. It's an organisation, not a geographic location, and therefore it's required to assert notability within the body of the article itself.  No notability is asserted, therefore it should be A7 Speedy Deleted as per my argument above. The only dissent is from Eastmain, who declined the initial speedy delete and comments twice above, who, with respect, appears to be confusing the idea of presumption of notability under WP:N (which occurs when there are reliable independent sources discussing the subject) with the idea of asserting notability - that is, making a specific claim that this organisation is more notable than a garden-variety organisation (which the article doesn't do). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do not understand why discussion was continued. There is one keep vote, from the originator of the article, who appears to be connected to the developer of the community.Student7 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article makes claims of uniqueness, including the fame of the golf course's designer and being consistent with New Urbanism. I am not the originator of the article. That was, who has not participated in this discussion, possibly because he or she was not notified of it. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note on Stembrand's talk page at 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC), which is a bit late in the process. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the "zero-discharge" sewage treatment plant which supplies the water for the gold course's greens is further evidence that this is not a run-of-the-mill development. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The zero-discharge plant is one of 24 in Atlanta alone. Further, Georgia law currently mandates zero-discharge for new developments of this kind; the fact that they're one of the first to comply with their legal obligations is neither unique nor notable. (per the sources you've cited in the article) - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - Since my earlier comments I've also been directed to WP:MILL which would appear to have application here even if sources were able to be found. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't seem to establish its notability.  The sources don't seem strong enough to support the organization--as is noted, they primarily seem to address the developmental phase, and are featured in a local paper which may or may not indicate a potential desire to highlight a local organization.   Vincent   Valentine  23:01, 13 October 2009 (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.