Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA (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 delete. --Core desat 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Shire in Bend, Oregon USA

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article previously nominated in December of 2006 (previous AfD discussion. The vote went to Keep, but the unanimous opinion of the Keepers was to give the creator the chance he asked for to expand and complete the article.  The creator has not appeared on Wikipedia in the months since, nor has this article been touched since December.  It remains a non-notable housing development, in the press at all solely because of its use of a name from Tolkien, and is still in violation of WP:SPAM. RGTraynor 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom -- non-notable.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Yeah, I remember this one, and was originally a keeper - but the article's improvements haven't come to standard, which is kind of a bummer. Delete accordingly.  --Dennisthe2 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No improvement since the last AfD and likely none forthcoming.  I'm still a little dubious on the idea of articles for housing developments ...  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see a rationale - in this case, architecture reminiscent of The Shire in the LOTR novels merged into a housing development. Vaguely notable unto itself, but nowhere near enough for here. --Dennisthe2 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The author has gone away, and so should this article. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I !voted delete last time, and there's absolutely nothing presented to change my mind. -- Kicking222 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' housing developments are rarely notable, and we gave it a good chance.-- danntm T C 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't mean to tell me that sticking a cleanup notice at the top of an article doesn't guarantee reform! The first keep was improvidently granted to begin with, notwithstanding some optimists' visions of an encyclopedia-quality article lurking in the shades. Pop Secret 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per Arkyan. The previous decision was to keep only so that the author could be given the chance to improve it. Chance not taken. Goodbye. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2007 (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.