Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1317 Logan Avenue


 * 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

1317 Logan Avenue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Not eligible for A7 and PROD removed. ~ RobTalk 11:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless article in its current state.  Ana  r  chyte   11:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, Not notable!--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks like a real estate listing copied and pasted into a WP article. And I don't believe for a second this was built in 1800.--Oakshade (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Parts of this are formatted like a real estate listing rather than an encyclopedia article, other parts are POV disparagements of the neighbourhood it's located in, and none of it is notable in any way. And for added bonus, this article claims that the house was built in 1800, while the article on Corpus Christi itself states that the city wasn't founded until 1833. I'm guessing that there's probably a direct conflict of interest here — although I obviously can't prove it, my working theory is that the article was posted from inside the same house described in the article. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Might be WP:SNOWable. Probably would've qualified for a G3, since I can't see this being anything but vandalism. -- Kinu t/c 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, WP:GNG, and WP:TNT. Even if it were not written like somebody's personal opinion, it would still have to be properly sourced and completely re-written to be encyclopedic and proven notable. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.