Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Virginia Land Trust (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. All delete !votes were placed before a Heymann job on the article, and I can't possibly see any reason to call for a delete now. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Western Virginia Land Trust
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is written much like an advertisement and appears to be being used by single-purpose accounts as a soapbox to promote the land trust. There is no obvious indication of why this organization is notable, as many of the sources appear to be unreliable, passing mentions, or press releases from the trust. This article has been deleted twice under WP:A7 and WP:G11, and was partially restored for an attempt to clean the article up, but the effect of this cleanup appears to be insufficient. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  03:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability beyond local newspapers. VG &#x260E; 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as article smacks or WP:ADVERT. No notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ADVERT X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability and, for the most part, an advert. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I just cleaned up the article, cut out the spam, polished away the advert edges, and (I think) made it encyclopedic. Passes WP:RS. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now has several references, and there is nothing wrong with local newspapers and television and radio stations as references. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the work done by User:Ecoleetage in making the article worthy of inclusion in Wiki. Great job!   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal Offered The work done by Ecoleetage meets Heymann enough for me. I'm not going to close this yet, since there are still some outstanding delete !votes, but the work done demonstrates to me that there are editors willing to work on this other than the SPA's that have been previously using it as a soapbox. Well done! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:43, 3 October 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.