Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASCO Properties

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. So Why 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCO Properties[edit]

Nothing but a promotional advertisement with only link to the group's website. No suggestion of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Speedy had already been declined. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem notable. Res 2216 firestar 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Granted, I'm not savvy to all the in's and out's of Wikipedia, NASCO Properties employs a unique model for preserving cooperative housing - a model which is being considered in Canada to preserve a large share of their affordable housing stock. Since I don't know how to connect this article to others within Wikipedia and how to cite all the references I have, it may appear that this article is not worth of inclusion, but I tend to disagree. If by "notability" this discussion is trying to determine whether this article is distinct or unique, I would assert that no other cooperative organization uses this structure of a federated land trust to preserve long term affordability for housing. This is notable both within the cooperative sector, and within the realm of community economic development. Tom.pierson

The way to demonstrate notability is to include references. Look up wp: references in the search box and it will explain how to do citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find third-party sources stating that indeed the NASCO model is considered by other organizations (and that it did indeed originate at NASCO, which we need to be able to verify), then there's a chance the article may be kept. Primary sources are inadequate for establishing notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so by definition it is a tertiary source, so you need to find secondary sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:06, 18 November 2008 (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.