Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadside Heritage


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Roadside Heritage

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

local project with no significance outside a small area. Only independent reference is to a small local paper. No real indication of notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the article could be significant, and I have tagged it for rescue. I don't have the time right now, but it sounds to me like a worthy and encyclopedic cause and I suspect the article could be rescued by some rewriting and sourcing. BTW that "small area" is a highway/valley 220 miles long. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I used Google news search and found this . They have coverage, and have received a 2.5 million dollar grant, so someone thinks they are notable.    D r e a m Focus  01:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have reorganized and partially rewritten the article to make it clearer what it is talking about. It could still use more references but I believe sources will be found sufficient to establish the notability of this program. --MelanieN (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I see a bunch of sources, with several already added. I'm willing to give this a chance to improve, or to at least merge what good there is here now. Arskwad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. IMHO another view or 2 would be helpful before this is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep — there are enough references to warrant this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - references provided substantiate notability.   talk 23:03, 21 May 2010 (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.