Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine Cottage (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   no consensus. The nomination reason is entirely invalid, we have thousands of articles on entities that no longer exist. Valid arguments are made for both keeping and deleting but participation is low despite being listed for three weeks therefore closing as no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maine Cottage
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Company Closed Cordie Southall (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but what is your rationale for deleting the article? Marasmusine (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK lets see if I have got this right. A business owner created a page for advertising purposes and then wanted it deleted after negative comments were posted. It was deleted through WP:G7 (Author request). It was created again soon after and tagged as WP:G4 (recreation of deleted article). And is now again up for AFD. I am tempted to !Vote keep as it is a case of the author using Wikipedia for advertising and then getting cold feet when something negative is added to their article. However, I don't think it meet the criteria before closure so Delete. I do think it should run through the AFD process as I am not sure C7 applies if other authors have added content. AIR corn (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the sources cited in the article are commenting on the shop's closure. As presented, this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT ("whoop-di-doo, a shop closed.") However, further sources are available: at this Google Books search, the lower two entries (The Passionate Shopper [Ann Levine, 1999] and Business Week issue 3726) appear to have significant coverage on Maine Cottage. Although these are only snippet views - I'm extrapolating based on the context. Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I recall correctly the deleted version of this had plenty more content and sources. That version shouldn't have been deleted under WP:CSD because a second editor had added content about the closure. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—I've restored revisions from the first creation. The revision that I deleted can be viewed at here. The reasoning behind my deleting the page under WP:G7 as requested was that the person who requested it had added most of the content to the article and admitted to creating the page solely for advertising. As such, I felt that the page wasn't created with the encyclopedia in mind and didn't see why it should have stayed. Airplaneman   ✈  13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * 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.