Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Leaves

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 speedy keep. on the basis of discussion here and at ANB DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Leaves

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page contains too much false information, and a lot of junk, and I have nonstop tried to improve it. My attempt to improve it has resulted in a lot of misunderstanding, and I have been unable to cope with it. Atterion Talk•Contribs 17:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found by Google searches a bunch of this info about this house is not true. ANd it definitely was not built in 1812. GPJ71 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete COI issues, and too much incorrect information, like dates and people.Hecticccc (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since both of those !votes are by confirmed socks of Atterion, I have struck them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - aside from being reliably sourced and inherently notable (as a NRHP registered building), the proposer has a conflict of interest as a member of the family that has owned the house since its construction. The proposer has been having some difficulty in getting across the POV that they wish to appear in the article regarding date of construction etc. The two supporters above are both newly registered and are deploying the same type of spurious rationale as the proposer has been doing for some time now. I believe this is likely to be a malicious nomination grounded in frustration and have opened a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Atterion#04 August 2011. If not socks then they'll be meats, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - GPJ71 and Hecticccc have been confirmed as socks. Can we speedy close this AfD, please? - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, National Register-listed properties are notable. Moreover, these appear to be reliable sources; there's no good reason to doubt them. This alone is sufficient reason to keep, but also keep because this is apparently a bad-faith nomination. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2011 (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.