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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 00:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University Park Alliance

[edit]

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No third-party sources. The description consists of fuzzy non-encyclopedic language ("facilitating investment, "building community capacity"), instead of "hard facts" (such as the size of the budget, or a description of the kind of measures which are financed). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The fuzzy press-release type wording needs cleanup, but they appear to be an otable organisation with sustained coverage in the news. This and this are examples of recent coverage found on Google News, and the news archives shows a lot more articles are availabe from behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. There maybe a good merge target out there, and rather than being a perma-stub, a merger would be nice. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unacceptably vague, and the article has no evidence of actually having accomplished anything. Some well-sourced specifics would help, but I'm not holding my breath. An article on a group or organisation must, at a bare minimum, answer the question "What have they actually done?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete the article because it's poorly written? Hobit (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete it because, based on the article and the sources I have access to, they don't seem to have done much of anything and are thus non-notable... but leaving open the option of someone with access to local sources having a differing perspective. Since even their own website doesn't indicate any notability in particular, I'm not very hopeful, but I'm not completely closing the possibility, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] looks on topic. A L/N search shows a few things, but the local paper isn't available to me. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very fluffy article. Honestly, I can find way more substantive material on the association of realtors from College Park, MD (due to their never-ending battles with the municipality, which has plenty of mentions in the local and university press), but I still don't think that entitles them to Wikipedia article. VG ☎ 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does assert notability. Is covered in multiple reliable third party sources. Also, it is a pioneer effort that is being mimicked by other universities. (Also, here's the text from [1] above 1 §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:15, 12 October 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.