Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YIMBY

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. Overall consensus here seems to hold that this topic is sufficiently notable, though I'd emphasise that sources are required. Some support for a merge/redirect to NIMBY definitely exists, but there is no consensus to enforce such a merge at this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YIMBY

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

Fails

• Merge with NIMBY. There are a surprisingly high number of hits on google scholar and google news. Pburka (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to NIMBY for the moment, since this is a plausible misspelling. None of the content should be merged because it is not sourced. However, if google searches can reveal sourced content, that should certainly be added to NIMBY.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NEO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article is poor and needs improvements, but the subject is relevant. In Stockholm, Sweden, the Yimby network takes an active part in debate regarding city planning, and and is mentioned in several news articles (examples: [1] [2]). A quick search in English gives examples from other cities as well ([3] [4] [5]). It is certainly not a "misspelling". --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to NIMBY, and add a line or two there mentioning this term. It does seem to exist, but it doesn't need its own page. Robofish (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The YIMBY network has over 4000 members in Stockholm, Sweden and has been on television, newspapers and radio on a number occations ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]). In Gotheburg, Sweden it has almost 800 members (Media-mentioning: [19]). The YIMBY Network also exists in the Swedish city of Uppsala and has also started up in Norway recently. YIMBY is also an established acronym in the United States and other countries [20] [21]. It is probably not advisable to put YIMBY and NIMBY together in the same article since YIMBY is more than an anti-NIMBY movement. I should mention that I am partial in this discussion considering I am a member of the YIMBY Network in Stockholm. (I should also mention that I have not created this article). Gardebring (Gardebring) 14:32, 13 September 2009
• Keep Please don't put things up for deletion just because you don't understand them. I have no idea why this was put up for deletion, I could stand moving it to Yes In My Backyard but even that would be strange Emj (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meet criteria for
  WP:V. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (

  WP:V). I don't see it in the article ... Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep I could expand the article with more facts, especielly for the networks in Sweden and Norway. However I am unsure of whether this is something I should do considering I am an active member of YIMBY in Stockholm. Let me know what is advisable. As you can see from my earlier comment I have added a lot of media references to this discussion, feel free to add these to the article. Gardebring (Gardebring) 11:13, 15 September 2009

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.