Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trees for Canterbury (1st nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was closed now by conclusion of 2nd AfD. This would have been a no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trees for Canterbury[edit]

A community organisation to plant more trees. A worthy aim, but hardly an encyclopaedic entry. Grutness|hello? 06:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. not notable. Cleduc 07:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 16:16, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't seem to fall foul of WWIN, and it does no other harm. Dan100 20:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Dan100. Notability is not in deletion policy, BTW.Dr Zen 02:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 03:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be more than some random person with a greenhouse, it won some local awards and claims to have put nearly 500,000 plants "into the community". Kappa 03:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. GRider\talk 18:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is there no vfd header on this article? RickK 22:24, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh. Because I put one there when the edit mechanisms broke down (see Villge Pump (technical) if you managed to avoid all the problems!) Grutness|hello? 23:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep, could improve, nothing too wrong with it in the meantime. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stealth ad for a commercial product. Lack of notability is within the criteria for deletion, as part of the definition for encylcopedic. Wyss 04:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep, seems to be nothing wrong with it, as others have said (and, certianly, nothing putting it under the deletion policy). James F. (talk) 07:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedia material. Every city and town on Earth has several, perhaps dozens, of organizations that do good works. Where I live near Boston there is a 70 page directory, two or three organizations per page, covering just the suburbs west of Boston, with counseling centers, outreach groups, fundraising groups, youth groups, support groups, fraternal organizations that supposedly do charitiable works, groups that raise money for scholarships, etc, etc, etc. Every single one of them is as notable as this, many of them more so. Wikipedia is not a worldwide directory of community and neighborhood organizations. --BM 02:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable in any way. Indrian 04:35, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep Completely harmless and potentially expandable Philip 02:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trees_for_Canterbury_(1st_nomination)&oldid=1166427078"