Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrington Plaza (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No valid argument for deletion provided by nominator, and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Barrington Plaza
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of a speedy deleted article. &rArr; Pickboth manlol   22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep that's not a rational for deletion. It was speedy deleted because the original creator (not me) blanked it. I created a new, different version. That's not a reason to delete an article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe if you can find some third party sources then you might save this article from being deleted again. &rArr;  Pickboth manlol   22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a third party source. But your nomination didn't indicate any sourcing concern with the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, though, if you want sources, there appear to be a nearly 5,000 of them, many entirely about the development. From what I can tell, this was a rather notable government financing scandal of the 1960s (it was the largest of its type, and it was investigated by the senate). As this happened 40+ years ago, sources are not quickly accessible. Indeed, I cannot access the LA Times, which wrote extensively about this story... otherwise I'd greatly expand the article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and I will buy some of the articles and add in the shady parts, warts and all.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, don't feel like you have to do that. People can see the articles exist... in theory that's enough to survive AFD. I used to have Lexis Nexis access that included the LA Times archives for free... hopefully someone like that will come along eventually. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources indicate a sufficient level of notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A little bit on the history of this article that isn't readily apparent: I nominated this article at AfD yesterday on the grounds of notability (see first AfD link above). It was deleted not because of notability, but because &mdash;the article author and at that time its only contributor of content&mdash;blanked the page and made what I interpreted to be an explicit request for deletion on my talk page, thereby qualifying it for G7 speedy deletion. I tagged it as such and it was deleted. Personally, I would have preferred that AfD run its course, but I saw no point in keeping an article if its author and only contributor of content requested deletion. About the same time, chimed in that he had found some sources to indicate the subject's notability, and requested the deleting admin to restore the article, which he did. No opinion on deletion this time around, but I ask the nominator to clarify the rationale for deletion, as the one cited is not valid. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the AFD nominator has been indefinitely blocked. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2009 (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.