Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobb Hill

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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb Hill[edit]

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

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 18:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few references to this community (and its cheese) in news [1], examples:[2][3][4][5], and books[6], examples:[7][8][9][10]. And there's more at Google Scholar.[11] A lot of the coverage also relates to its founder,Donella Meadows, so a merge/redirect could be considered, but a lot of the coverage (such as the write-ups in various books about sustainable communities) is independent of her, so I'd lean to keeping the article separate and improving it with sources such as these.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is beyond me why anybody would want to delete an article about a worthwhile project like this. If Wikipedia only had articles about projects like these the world would be a paradise. I have added a worthwhile and notable reference. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worthwhile but it is insufficiently notable for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources listed above appear to confer some degree of notability. if they are included in the article then I would lean towards keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warfieldian (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (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.