Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan-Manning House

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-26 07:46Z

Morgan-Manning House[edit]

Contested A7 speedy. I think the reasons pretty much speak for themselves on this one. I wish Mr. Broughton's 4th grade class all the best, but Wikipedia is not their personal web host - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as containing no encyclopedic content. The class are welcome to create an article about the house if it's notable, but it would have to be based on reliable published sources rather than personal observation. And an "article coming soon" page is clearly unnecessary. EALacey 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After rewriting by User:Oakshade, this is a legitimate stub. EALacey 07:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, there is nothing stopping the creation of the page when information is available. Alternatively, someone could properly write up this National Register property before the completion of the AFD, though that would rob the 4th-graders of their chance to give it a shot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to keep following improvement. (Darn, I was hoping to see what the kids would come up with.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article completely re-written. It's an historical location that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places [1]. --Oakshade 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It still needs much expansion, None the less it's clearly notable , even from the brief stub here.DGG 04:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
change to Keep following rewrite by User:Oakshade - if I understand the AfD rules right, I can't withdraw the nom now there are delete !votes - iridescenti (talk to me!) 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- as both deleters have now changed their minds,, can this now be Speedy kept? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the subject is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a sure sign of notability, and the only two who had favored deletion have since withdrawn that position. Burntsauce 17:07, 25 April 2007 (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.