Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-profit housing


 * 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 redirect to Development of non-profit housing in the United States. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-profit housing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a dictionary definition, probably only used in the USA. With multiple better known alternative terms to describe this topic if it were expanded. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems to me we can simply redirect to Public housing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to public housing Development of non-profit housing in the United States (per EMG). Shawn in Montreal is on to the correct solution, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect  term to Development of non-profit housing in the United States, User:Shawn in Montreal, User:Carrite, User:Aguyintobooks, I think this is a better, more accurate, and more useful redirect target for this American Term-of-art and probable search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominated article has no US-specific content, even if the title is apparently the American term. But yes I suppose your suggestion is equally valid. I'd still prefer that it redirect to the top level article, which does contain a section on the US, but if you or someone else went ahead and non-admin closed this as a redirect to your preferred target I'd have no objection. This really doesn't require an Afd from what I can see -- certainly not one that's now been relisted twice and is 21 days old, all for a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  18:29, 24 September 2017 (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.