Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Nature at Reads Creek

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. References have been added to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Nature at Reads Creek[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

not notable. a nursery selling plants. only ref is a link to the nursery's web site. web search only finds listings for the nursery, no notable references. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all - I believe I was the original creator of this article, which focused on the public arboretum. I have no interest in the commercial enterprise, but if the public aboretum still exists, I hope that entry will be maintained. Here is my original article:

Jones Arboretum and Botanical Gardens, also known as Jones Arboretum and Natural Gardens, and now called Read's Creek Nursery, is an arboretum and for-profit plant nursery located on Route 14 in Readstown, Wisconsin.

The community arboretum was established in 1973 by Royce Jones, a nuclear engineer, in conjunction with a tree nursery and his own gardens. After his retirement, it now features more than 100 kinds of trees, as well as some 700 non-woody plants, including 400 perennials. The plants are available for sale, or purely for learning and enjoyment.

It seems a shame to me if information about a public arboretum is deleted - but I have no particular interest in a commercial undertaking.

All best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on the Second Nature site or reviews about it that talk about the arboretum as being anything other than an area to review plants that you can buy. Can anyone find anything that shows that the arboretum still exists as an attraction for visitors? rsjaffe talk 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable commercial venture. I visited their website and it appears to be a very nice place, but I was unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the article is unreferenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've found a reference after scrolling past some Facebook pages. There might be more out there, but I can't find any at the moment. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I have performed a cleanup as well as added the reference to give the article less of a promotional tone. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved since nomination. I've found additional sources such as News8000, WNA, and another snippet from the La Crosse Tribune.
Comment It appears the owners of this business also own a company called Second Nature By Hand (source), I'm not sure if it is linked to this business other than being owned by the same people. NemesisAT (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added sources show significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2021 (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.