Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boot house


 * 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   keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Boot house

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Article contains little to no content and there are no citations, references, or sources. Veraladeramanera (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence this term exists outside this entry. Mystache (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete WP:SNOW. AltecLansing12 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced and of dubious accuracy - precisely why would concrete walls mean the buildings fall foul of the building regulations?  Perhaps due to condition but that does not apply equally to all of a set of properties.  No evidence for "Mr Boot" or who he was either - when an article is this vague it is impossible to verify the buildings actually exist. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep: article has already improved beyond all recognition, now well worth keeping. References have added credibility and aforementioned dubious statement clarified to something meaningful. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Strong Keep. We have stub articles for a reason. But fine, a Google Books search returned 50+ reasonable sources, so I've now supported all 5 sentences of the stub article with a source. Maybe next time you could look before stating "it is impossible to verify", "no evidence", or "WP:SNOW". –  7 4   07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator's reason no longer applies because it's referenced (please check WP:BEFORE, articles should only be nominated when they can't be sourced, not when they simply aren't at the moment) - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though the article will probably remain a stub-quality article for quite some time, I agree that it's substantial enough to keep. Matt (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep = Much improved. Now verifiable and verified.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. lots of good references. Aubergine (talk) 20:22, 14 March 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.