Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talbot Green


 * 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. The objections of those voting to delete have been sufficiently addressed in subsequent modifications. alpha Chimp laudare 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Talbot Green
Unencyclopedic, original research. The prod was removed by the author. Also, this article fails WP:HOLE as I couldn't begin to tell you what Talbot Green is after reading it. A city? A shopping center? A town? A housing complex? A neighborhood? What is it? BigDT 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Who in the what now? Okay, no sources, and appears to be WP:OR. --Porqin 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cautious Delete per nom. I agree with Porqin -- no sources, and seems to be WP:OR. If the author(s) can cite some verifiable sources and establish notability (and clear up ambiguity) I might reconsider my position. Maybe this is notable and just requires cleanup; but at present, this reads almost like WP:SPAM. Scorpiondollprincess 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. Deletion is not necessarily a ban on a creation of a better article about the topic.  If Talbot Green is a city in England, by all means, create an article on it ... but from the information given, we have no idea what it is. BigDT 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Talbot Green is a town in Rhondda, Wales if you look at the electoral divisions section of Rhondda Cynon Taff, you'll see Talbot Green listed. The whole article needs to cleaned up though, it's a mess. --RMHED 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've cut it down and rewritten it with a more encyclopedic tone and less advertising, and copyrighted material removed. Yes, it's a town, I've been there :) -- Archfalhwyl 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Also, WP:HOLE can't be "failed," as there's nothing binding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I have no objection to keeping the new version. BigDT 00:55, 4 August 2006 (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.