Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centralia power plant

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. as emerging snow. StarM 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralia power plant[edit]

Non-notable power plant, written like an ad. Probably could be speedied. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) *Speedy Delete G11 - Advertisement like-article, not notable. _David ^WS _(contribs) 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) — blatant advertisement. This also looks like it could have been copied from another site, which, if shown, could also be a copyvio. MuZemike (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio from [1] -- cited at the bottom of the page as "Main contributions from source: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/centralia Power Technology with modifications/additions.
" so one need not guess where. Otherwise, it might make an article--informative, not particularly spammy. Permit proper re-creation. DGG (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote the article to eliminate the copyvio. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eastmain did a good job of stubbification. major facilities like this are notable. DGG (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edits made this a perfectly cromulent article on a notable facility. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and someone get Eastman a Barnstar. Dlohcierekim 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. MuZemike (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that it has been rewritten so nicely. _David ^WS _(contribs) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep after a successful and daring article rescue! MuZemike (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the nominator's reasons ('written like an ad') is now completely dealt with. The issue of copyright violation is now gone. The remaining reason for nomination (notability) remains, but I say the subject is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (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.