Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Lake Pool
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The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rock Lake Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Subject lacks notability, article lacks 3rd party sources. The one reference here is maintained by the article's creator. Claims of notoriety are not substantiated. Efforts to improve the article by removing uncited claims have been thwarted by the article's creator, taking to AFD. RadioFan (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with Conditions - As long as the editor is adding to the article, adding references, I see no problem with the article. If the editor isn't and is just reverting to "his" version, then it should be deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 29, 2009 @ 04:26
- Keep - The sources like the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette that have written substantially on the topic are independent reliable sources and not the article creator.--Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I went ahead and added some references. There are still some unsourced statements that need sourcing or removal. The original editor is having problems with ownership of the article, and they need to come to terms with a community edited project. All in all, I'm convinced this is a notable swimming pool and problems with the article's creator need to be dealt with in other ways, without deleting the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for my argument for keeping-- the subject is notable as established by the multiple, reliable, independent sources I added to the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Clearly a ridiculous article about a swimming pool that was hardly notable at the time and no longer exists.Bildstit (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article meets inclusion criteria because it is covered in multiple independent sources as stated by LinguistAtLarge. - Mgm|(talk) 14:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Significant local coverage of this pool but having coverage in the Fredericksburg, VA paper really puts it over the top for notability. Unreferenced material has been removed. Thanks to the editors who stepped in on the ownership issues with this article. It's got a good shot at being a good quality, notable article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (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.