Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greening of Detroit

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greening of Detroit[edit]

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

Non-notable non-profit, fails WP:ORG. Allowing an article for this extremely unimportant org will make it difficult to add articles about legitimately notable orgs in Detroit. Furthermore, I believe the author may be an editor paid by the organization to write a flattering article about it. Detroit Joseph (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Can he do that? Is that how Wikipedia runs? Articles can just get deleted for basically no reason? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of the Knowledge (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't get deleted for no reason. That's why there's a process of debate here. You are welcome to defend the position that the article should be kept, as long as you can justify it with Wikipedia's policies on article inclusion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I see mentions from the local CBS affiliate [11], the local ABC affiliate [12], the Detroit Free Press [13], and Fortune/CNN [14]. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Comment - It appears we posted at the same time, so just a note to also see the sources in my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and kudos to Northamerica1000 for finding the sources that convincingly demonstrate notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stub article, but even with what's here organization seems notable. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now substantially improved - 'start' class - well done, Northamerica1000. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to say "delete" or is that understood? Detroit Joseph (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is counted as your delete !vote; only one !vote is allowed in AfD discussions. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. It's obvious that the topic passes notability guidelines; why do you still want it deleted? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they overinflate their importance plus I also think this might be an instance of paid advocacy. If so, the strategy is brilliant: who would suspect a shill if the article is as messed up as this one was at the beginning? Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am puzzled. The article was terribly written, factually incorrect, and not supported by the citations given. I rewrote it a bit, but probably needs additional work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the article. I've also performed some work to improve it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable as above. User:Hgilbert (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They've received a hefty amount of good and local coverage and there's significant improvement. Good information, good article. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 10 November 2013 (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.