Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupancy

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2025 April 29. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupancy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Occupancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not a dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as DICTDEF. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Launchballer 02:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I feel that the article is not entirely a dictionary definition and that there is room for encyclopedic expansion, particularly in the "building codes" section. However, the article in its current state is not well sourced or especially useful. If this is deleted, it should be without prejudice towards a better encyclopedic article on the topic existing in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but no prejudice to draftify. When I initially saw the page, I thought that it could be kept. Turned out it is primarily about the word "occupancy" rather than about the concept of occupancy, especially with the section "other meanings". But I think it has the potential to be a better article, it just needs time.

Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on a draft about the concept of vacant buildings (they have a lot of unique challenges like abandonment, squatting, reuse, pest control) that I was probably going to include in this article instead. Usually we don't delete articles just because they're bad but have the potential to be better (there's WP:TNT but I don't think it's at that level of unsaveable). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 22 April 2025 (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.