Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowmont Village

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. Deor (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowmont Village

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just down the road from me, but still, I just don't find reliable sources that allow it to pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the nomination for speedy deletion. The article now has links to five reliable external sources mentioning or dedicated to Meadowmont Village. Two of them are reliable secondary sources. 1) A page dedicated to Meadowmont Village on a tourist-oriented website hosted by the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development, an official agency of the State of North Carolina and 2) a Yelp page dedicated to Meadowmont Village. This meets the WP:GNG standards that Dennis Brown refers to. As to the subject itself, it is a place that a significant number of people live in, work in, and shop at, and that is visited by a significant number of tourists who would like information about it. It is therefore notable and also well-documented by linked reliable primary and secondary sources! Larry Grossman (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should comment further that I believe that the Meadowmont Village is beyond notable - it is extraordinarily notable - in that it is the site of one of the first homes in the U.S. with air conditioning. This is the reason I started the article, because I was dismayed that there was no article in Wikipedia about the community in which one of the first homes in the U.S. with air conditioning was built - the start of a significant development for the enire world.Larry Grossman (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK though with changing this article into an article about the greater community of Meadowmont. I see now that Meadowmont Village is just an area within Meadowmont. At a minimum, Wikipedia truly needs to have a separate article about Meadowmont, arguably one for Meadowmont and then a separate one for Meadowmont Village. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created the article for the greater community of Meadowmont, which is extraordinarily notable as the location of one of the first homes in the U.S. with air conditioning, but I see now that that home is not in Meadowmont Village. Meadowmont is what I really care about. I still think Meadowmont Village is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article since it has a large number of stores and offices and is well-documented, but I now concede that it is greater Meadowmont that has the extraordinary notability. Anyway, this has been a helpful discussion, I believe the Meadowmont Village article is greatly improved, a new article was born from this (Meadowmont), and I vote to keep the revised Meadowmont Village article. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense to me, and work on the larger Meadowmont article, using that info. I've not heard of the place, but would love to see more about it if it can be sourced. If eventually, the Village has enough sources to become a separate article, then by all means it should be created, but for now, deleting and then I suppose redirecting the Village name to the main article, makes sense. Like I said, I live here (in Lexington, work in Greensboro) and I work on tons of NC articles all the time, but they still have to pass the criteria. By the way, you might want to join WP:WikiProject North Carolina if you are interested in NC articles in general. We don't have a lot of active members and can always use more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources on offer appear to the links on the article, and they come nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG; I don't see a single independent reliable source among them.
Larry Grossman's comment about the air-conditioned house confuses Wikipedia's concept of notability with separate concept of importance. As to Meadowmont as a whole, that article also lacks any reliable sources independent of the subject, and should also be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to BrownHairedGirl's comments,are you sure you reviewed all of the links? You said you did not see a single independent reliable source? You don't consider a website run by the state government of North Carolina to be an independent source? And you don't consider Yelp to be independent? ...and you don't consider either one to be reliable? Larry Grossman (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Larry, that's correct. Not a single independent reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:N.
    http://www.visitnc.com is a website which exists to promote the area; is fundamentally advertising, and as such it is is not independent.
    Yelp.com is WP:USERGENERATED, which is not reliable.
    http://meadowmont.net/ is published by the Meadowmont Community Association, so it too is not independent.
    In summary, the sources so far show a complete absence of anything which might go even part way to satisfying WP:GNG. Unless new sources are found, there is absolutely no basis for having an article on either Meadowmont Village or Meadowmont. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I've stated above.Larry Grossman (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same reasons as Dennis and BrownHairedGirl. There are no independent reliable sources for it to pass GNG. United States Man (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Need reliable third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.