Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon Women's Land Trust

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Women's Land Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Very small (less than the size of a house), most citations, and things written about them are by them, only 3 google news results, of which all of them aren't even specifically about the land trust but happen to mention them due to pipeline in the area. ShimonChai (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 147 acres is larger than most houses, If size determined notability, and 147 acres were too small, then we'd have to delete at least 61 towns or cities, including Vatican City. And if coverage by Google news were a requirement for notability, then probably half of Wikipedia ought to be deleted. Vexations (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that coverage is that external coverage is extremely limited and it's not big enough as a land trust to be notable on it's own for that. I don't see exactly how it is notable. ShimonChai (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion is based on two claims regarding notability. A) that area matters (too small) and B) that the number of google news results determines notability (only three). Both are false. If you want to argue that the article should be deleted because the information cannot be verified or because it lack significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then you can try that. Don't bring up reasons to delete an article that have already been solidly rejected by consensus, i.e. size/area and the number of google hits. Vexations (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't know how I found my way here, but I think Wikipedia has room for OWL. I looked around a little, and immediately stumbled upon an academic comparison of OWL and C18 "Capability Brown" type landscapes, so clearly examplars of women's land serve their purpose in the academic grist mill. ("Women's land and garden history: art, activism, and lesbian spaces". By Lisa L. Moore in Disciples of Flora: Gardens in History and Culture.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be quite a few sources cited in the article already ... Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:03, 22 June 2018 (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.