Talk:Alta Vista Botanical Gardens

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was 'keep', but needs improvements. .

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from {{{source}}}. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2009070510022456.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Horticulture and Gardening Start‑class Low‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I <name redacted>, Vice president of the Board of Alta Vista Botanical Gardens and web master of our web site hereby grant Wikipedia permission to use copied text from our web site in the article describing our Garden. I hereby make the text of this website available for modification and reuse in Wikipedia under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License] (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

Sincerely, <name redacted>

The other issues with this entry is that it is overly promotional in tone and completely unsourced. You might also want to read the section regarding conflict of interest since you are affiliated with the subject of the entry. Either because of the copyright issue or the issues I just mentioned, it will need to be rewritten. I have fixed the spacing so that it displays properly. A leading space (to indent for example) will cause formatting problems. Please ask if you have any questions. Wperdue (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know what to do now[reply]

The next step would be to tone down the language so that it is more neutral. It is still too promotional. Also, you will want to find reliable third-party sources that refer the subject. I will remove the speedy deletion template and put the standard maintenance tags on the entry while you work on it. Wperdue (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I need to leave now but will return to this later today. i did edit the page and removed a lot of the fluff. We ARE a relatively new botanical Garden and are having trouble creating a presence that people can find. I had hoped that getting listed in wikipedia would help.[reply]

In that case, you're basically admitting that your intent for opening an account on Wikipedia is solely to advertise your company, which clearly goes against Wiki's spam policies. That's without mentioning the clear conflict of interest spawning from the creation of this article. Therefore, the article will be put up for deletion pretty quickly, as it should, unless the article is rewritten from a neutral point of view and reliable third-party sources can be found. Also, do not remove article issue templates until they have been resolved. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Can we remove the nomination for deletion? The article now meets all of the criteria required.[reply]

last paragraph

The information in the last paragraph is provided through usage of an advertisement. Is that valid? If not it should be removed or a better source providedOttawa4ever (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)I have done considerable work on this article. Added relevant information about its development and where it is today. I had tried earlier to add some information about its history but it was removed, so be it. Can we take my name off of the top of this page?[reply]

Feldmoves (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Can we remove the nomination for deletion? The article now meets all of the criteria required.[reply]

Prior to any removal, consesus of the community must be achieved. Currently there is no strong consesnus at this point either way. We have to let other users weigh in and say if they feel the worries of the article have been achieved. After that an admin will review the case and make a determination. Usually a tag like this can last up to 2 weeks. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]