Request for undeletion and relist of Shirelive. Article is revised and represents a neutral position, is has many credible references and is notable. The original decision from the previous deletion debate is no longer the case because over 70% of the article has been changed since. This article can be viewed from User:Bunzyfunzy/Shirelivechurchbunzyfunzy (talk) 11.01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I continue to see no significant 3rd party sources about it. DGG (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck your bolded !vote, as nominator your desired outcome is already known and should only be counted once. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion, but given that major reason for deletion was copyright (per the close), I don't see any reason not to allow the recreation of the article. I'm seeing local news sources that would be enough to avoid speedy deletion, but I expect a new article would be at AfD pretty quickly. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn,I disagree, I'm for this article. The copyright section can be changed, overall content is ok compared to other articles of the same nature. It would be worth keeping if there were minor changes. heaps of coverage in media when googled with the new and old name. 710a (talk)— 710a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Bunzyfunzy has subsequently been blocked for 3 days for socking, and 710a and Taraandrews have been blocked indefinitely. I am striking their comments. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per DGG and I also believe someone raised copy vio concerns on the content within the article also. Bidgee (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
