Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Community Company


 * 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, considering Pgagnon999's arguments. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Community Company

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research Ros0709 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Delete WP:OR as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb   "Talk" 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No idea what this is supposed to be about, but it definitely seems to be original research/synthesis, possible POV pushing too. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep In light of the above feedback the entry has been rewritten to include references which demonstrate that the entry is not original research. The community company business model was first developed in the 1970's in Devon, England and implemented in many real live businesses. The structure and principles of the community company business model were formally presented in papers in 1977, 1983 and 1996. Various academic and other research into how the community company works were also carried out. The entry is an attampt to summarise this.Nicholas 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasJMoore (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Although it is difficult to evaluate the print references you provided, I think it is important to WP:Assume good faith and believe that they do indeed refer to this model. However, I think it would be important to determine if this is a model that received significant enough notability in the '70s and '80s as well as a legacy of inherited notability that makes it important today and not just a vague artifact. If it is an artifact, the material might be moved to a broader article about the subject matter. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Unless the new sources can be shown to be false I see no particular reason for deletion (although the article needs more work). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (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.