Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleckley Inn


 * 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   soft delete. slakr \ talk / 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Bleckley Inn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Google News search seem to show one article partly about the subject, and another brief mention, but it is not enough to establish notability. Darylgolden(talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the former incarnation as a historic building is enough, even if all the sources for that aren't online. The article needs to be about the building though, not the business. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaning to delete. I remember investigating this article a while back when I tagged it with multiple issues. The author is (or was) a paid editor focusing on writing articles about bed-and-breakfast lodgings, and was blocked for a couple of weeks for sockpuppetry. Some of this author's articles have existed a while, some have been deleted. I agree that the building is historic, but it isn't a given that all historic buildings are notable enough for an article here, particularly if the historic interest is mostly local. I'd like to see further evidence, online or not. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP, because there are no significant sources about the business. If the building is historical, and if there are enough resources, then an article on the building would be appropriate. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  02:59, 15 January 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.