Talk:Enright Ridge Urban Ecovillage
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Hello, I am contesting the deletion of our page. I apologize I forgot to source the original material from the Foundation of Intentional Community, since it was our organization that wrote it in the first place. I can do this immediately.
You also state that it is a "non-notable neighborhood". This is because other than being an eco-village within a neighborhood, it is also an incorporated 501(c)(3) that can be linked to other organizations working within it that is mentioned in the introduction paragraph. We will make pages for these also. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERUEV (talk • contribs) 18:53, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
Prod[edit]
I've removed the prod. This is an unusual enough venture that there is lot sof interest. I don't have time to rewrite it immediately, but I'll list a few sources that might be used. More than enough here to warrant removing the prod:
- http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/enright-ridge-urban-ecovillage-zm0z15onzcom
- http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/09/04/price-hill-eco-village/15108549/
- http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/071514-enright-ridge-urban-eco-village.aspx
- http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/homefrontblog/community-supported-agriculture/
- https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2013/03/08/2013-green-business-awards-Enright.html Meters (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because...[edit]
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --74.83.229.141 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, you can go ahead and delete that entire about section. the first paragraph is original though. Can I keep working on it please? This is slowing my progress with all of these messages for deletion. I'm not sure what's still on there or not because the section you say is copied from another source is not visible anymore. Is it deleted, is it not?
- The section that was a blatant copyright violation has been removed, there are currently no deletion tags on this article, so unless a reason is given (per our deletion policy, it will not be deleted. menaechmi (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)