Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Enterprise

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Village Enterprise[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)

Article about an organization that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Written in a promotional tone though it has been previously trimmed. Also sources are mostly passingmentions. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, Africa and California. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article needs a massive cleanup. There are citations to the Drucker Institute and Aid For Africa, which seem to be significant organizations. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft: Agree with WeirdNAnnoyed, I have done significant cleanup to the article, but it will need complete resourcing given none of the sources are in an accepted encyclopedic format. Furthermore, the sections are non-standard and the remaining sections will need to be rewritten from scratch. There is likely enough source material and citations for an article; however, given the article's condition it should not be in main space right now, rather in draft space. Editchecker123 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the article trimming, would the nominator be okay with draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Editchecker123. Sal2100 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Liz, Yes i believe Draftification is better at this point. I must commend you on how you handle issues. With you everyday with the mop makes wiki better! Jamiebuba (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I try not to see these discussions as an eternal battle between "Keep" and "Delete" but is this content substantial and of any use to the project, now or in the future. I'm sure that POV is not codified in policy anywhere but, for me, it helps me understand when articles are really crap and need to go and when, in another case, time in Draft space might eventually lead to something worthwhile for our readers. But thanks for the support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - might be similar to Draft:Village Capital, I would be interested with updating this as well. - Indefensible (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be an academic journal article by a researcher with no apparent affiliation with the org, with very detailed analysis. (Available on academia.edu, but I'm having a hard time getting a stable anonymous URL.) -- Visviva (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2023 (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.