- 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. J04n(talk page) 11:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mansionization (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)
Not sure if this article is an attack/vandalism page towards those who might be richer hence no CSD tag. Just want others opinion for contrast? thesimsmania 19:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not willing to !vote yet. The page, (at this writing) is barely more than a dictionary definition. It was PROD'ed as such, but the author then expanded it (slightly). There is an article to be made here about the social and economic effects caused by this process in question, but it is not clear that the author has any intention to finish creating said article. I don't have the time or inclination to do so either. Unless someone is willing to rescue this article, I fear it is doomed for the circular file. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it has the potential to be a good article, does it meet WP:CORP? I'm confused on this one thesimsmania 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The concept is notable in the field of land use planning, and it is simple to improve the article through normal editing. WP:CORP does not apply, as this is not an article about a company or an organization. The general notability guideline is the relevant guideline. The article must be watched so that it maintains the neutral point of viewCullen328 Let's discuss it 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - There are enough potentially good sources to build a decent article. See, for instance this and this. Plenty of book hits as well. What exactly is the delete rationale posted by the nominator? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I discovered four books with "Mansionization" in the title. Two were published by university presses, and another was published by the Massachusetts Bar Association. Many other books deal with the concept in detail.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ç Google News and Books search show frequent use of the term. It's not well-written and it's arguably biased (presumably mansionization is good at least for the person in the mansion) but it's a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 2 refs, and a bit more detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Do not delete. Mansionization is a common, in-use word. There are many media reports of mansionization being discussed at town and county community meetings. There is no other word that conveys the meaning of both needless extravagance of space and building materials to expand a home square footage; and the surprise infringement upon the hapless community who does not wish it. There are many references to the word in use. The article simply needs to site s selection of the references in the article.Do not delete. Rstafursky (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2013 (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.