Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation


 * 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. Nja 247 08:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation

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

In the words of the Nostalgia Critic...where do I start? POV? Spam? COI?  Where!? DodgerOfZion (talk)


 * Keep Whilst I agree with the noms sentiments, they are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it. The main issue is, does it meet notability requirements? I believe it does (here). Feel free to chop out/tag as necc, but I think there should be an article on the topic.  Chzz  ►  16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve as per Chzz. Always better to improve rather than delete, as topic seems notable. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Material is copied directly from the website. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Note that the article's author has expressed a desire to donate the material from the orgnsiations website to Wikipedia, but without allowing change.  "Copyright © 2009 Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation (NatGreene) - All Rights Reserved unless expressly stated, Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." from .  This is a clear indication that the goal is purely promotional in nature with an advancement of the organisations viewpoint without possibly of changing the text to suit a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. ...  disco spinster   talk  13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Shall need to be improved upon. Renaissancee (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * GFDL Status updated on Website - outline format improved upon - guidance always appreciated!NatGreene (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed that you were reaching out to residents of the borough in regards to the Greensboro article.  The content must be encyclopedic, notable, and not just placed for the sake of bloating an article.  Keep in mind also that anyone can edit the encyclopedia. DodgerOfZion (talk)
 * 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.