Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openhousenewyork


 * 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:IAR, nominator gave weak rationale and has a history of possibly disruptive AfDs (and I'm a bit wary of a user whose first edit is installing Twinkle). Notability is clearly asserted in article anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Openhousenewyork

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

Spammy with zero evidence of notability. This is ridiculous Basegirlball (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - To my understanding "this is ridiculous" is not an accepted criteria for deletion. The organization in question has been around for a number of years, and their primary event, which takes place every October, has gotten coverage in the NY Times in the form of a number of articles each year.  It seems a small organization, but size does not necessarily determine notability. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Ed and the New York Times. KnightLago (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Added a ref from Ed to the article. Ridiculous is a particularly weak argument. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per Ed Fitzgerald, KnightLago and DeadEyeArrow.  Horologium  (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (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.