Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith Farm Center for Healing and the Arts


 * 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   merge to Michael Lerner (environmentalist) . T. Canens (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Smith Farm Center for Healing and the Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not encyclopaedic, reads like an advertisement, no notability and unreferenced.  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 11:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominator makes a case for fixing not deleting (and I have made a start). Notability seems to be the issue.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As above, indeed I do! Always much happier to see a good improved article than none, and if it's notable and has sources, so much the better. As such, I won't !vote until the end of the week, to see what happens.  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 09:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As nominator, you are deemed already to have !voted delete. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not appear to be notable. The only linked Reliable Source cited at the article, a Washington Post obituary of the founder, does not mention the center (at least not in the abbreviated free version linked to). Google News Archive finds many mentions by the Washington Post (which is, after all, the center's hometown newspaper) but they are just that, mentions; none provide significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Since the nom seems to be waffling a little, let's give this a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * waffling? I'd be offended if it wasn't very true... I'd now say keep under gf with the new refs.  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 11:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * merge Nothing that cannot go in the bio article' insufficient separate  notability.    DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability worth speaking of. Happy to merge per DGG as a second choice. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG and Stifle - no reason to lose attribution and some good work done here. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge at best. I don't think the subject itself is notable to have its own article.  –BuickCenturyDriver 20:34, 15 June 2011 (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.