Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenandoah Acres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 unless significant coverage in proper reliable sources can be proved, the article will not pass the traditional notability definition as it stands as of now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shenandoah Acres

Shenandoah Acres (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Strong Delete - absolutely no reason why this should remain on an encyclopedia. Truly awful article. Markanthony101 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with this article. This may be of interest: WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and WP:HOPELESS. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Not a great article, but there is nothing irredeemable here. It certainly meets notability standards. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

-Comment - The real question we should be asking is whether something like this belongs on an encyclopedia. Markanthony101 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it satisfies the relevant policies, such as WP:V and WP:RS, and if it asserts that the subject is notable for some reason supported by sources... then, yes, it does. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I note that some cleaning up might be warranted, notability seems clear. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Nominated by now-indefinitely blocked user. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy keep per SchuminWeb. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete it doesn't matter if it was nominated by an indef blocked user or not, we have to discuss the article based on policy based reasoning. I was searching for sources that can be found in the article, and I only found one that is considered Reliable for to be considered for WP:N. The other sources include passing news mentions, trivial mentions (about the baby pool, student who died of shock in the resort) travel guides, yellow pages etc. Secret account 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - delete, per Secret's reasoning above and lack of notability. The nominator should not have been able to nominate this page for deletion, but since he has we have to consider it fairly. Terraxos (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is another case where references are probably available, but not on the Internet. Perhaps an editor who lives in the area can see what references are available at a local library or in back issues of the local newspaper. I fixed the formatting of the existing references. --Eastmain (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My deletion has been contested. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Wrongly_accused_of_sockpuppetry.3B_consequent_case_was_illegally_handled_and_wrongfully_executed

In fact, proposing this and other articles for deletion brought me to the powerful wrath of Mr. Schumin's friends. I say the admin hierarchy has no right to do what it has done. Have a look for yourself to see just how corrupt and downright wrong that decision was. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability not established. --Veritas (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


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.