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', but needs improvements. . It's clear from this discussion that the article is still salvageable, but it's in some need of hard work. (X! · talk) · @117 · 01:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Vista Gardens[edit]

Non-notable; no hits on Google other than official site and a page that no longer exists. Also a violation of Wiki's spam policy; page creator admitted on article discussion page that he created it solely to advertise his company. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 17:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per discussion page, the article was created as an advertisement. CarbonX (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Defintitely more to the article, needs work, I could go either way. CarbonX (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Seems to be written as spam. Desperatly needs secondary sourcing. Could be fixed i think if the cretor spends the time. But as of now it reads as an advertisementOttawa4ever (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In further thought since the article cretor created the page as a possible COI. It makes it doubtful this may be done by the creator Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Did what i could with the article i think some additional sources can be used here http://expandinghorizons.biz/html/aricles_about_us.html but its hard to know what to put in because i dont undertsnad gardens so well. I think the article can be saved thogh, additionally they need to be verified as their posted on the main web site Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)The site does have relevance. Walk through it, go to the Garden News page. There is a great deal of community interest in the Garden and activities and progess continues. Seach for the site in 'Bing!'but list it as 'Alta Vista Botanical Gardens' and you will find 9 of the 10 links on page 1 relate to the Garden. On Google, seven of the listings on the first page relate to Alta Vista Garden in Vista (including the Wikipedia listing). We have had a lot of press but some of it has dropped off. I could site many more sources but they would have to come from reprints on the AVG web site. Also, almost half of our Board mmebers are connected with Quail Botanical Gardens in Encinitas, CA which is a well established Garden. Bryan[reply]

Delete - non-notable garden. andy (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but ... The Garden has numerous secondary sources which have been implemented and that could be implemeted (They are available on the web). They do establish some notability. There has been a considerable amount of work done on this article. But there is a considerable amount to be done still as well. I think there are some issues. One issue is that It is generated on the basis of COIN. Tagging the article i think is very important at this stage and alot of information in the article still gives off this aroma and needs addressed. The article needs work. If this is addressed, there isnt much reason to delete the article. If its not addressed its hard to save the article and it comes accross wrong. At the very least the article could be merged with the main Botanical garden page and if a neutral party came along could regenerate it. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. I didn't spent a lot of time digging through the sources (as of this revision), but they seemed to be reliable. There's still some flowery language to be cleaned up, but there seems to be enough there worth saving that deleting the article isn't the right solution. Kingdon (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to have more comments about the reliability of the sourcing as this crucial is crucial to the guideline the AFD needs to be closed against.

There was a new york times article that was in the article before, but seems to have disappeared now. And several local newspaper clippings from the area where the garden is located. Depending on your view of local media and the NY times (which not being present anymore seems to be blow to national notability) makes the article a bit notabile. Id say the sources as they stand in the article at this point in time right now its sketchy at this point. That is not to say that other sources dont exist and could be implemented. The main website claims other national magazines have covered the garden. But this information has not been implemented nor verified to my knowledge Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (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.