Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woodmen's Circle Home


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Woodmen's Circle Home

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of this suggests an independently notable and improvable article for acceptance, the links listed are simply a local news story and then a trivial link, my searches are then finding the same thing, nothing sufficient to actually suggest this being improvable and acceptable. This was in fact PRODed when it started but it was removed with the basis of still needing improvements, but that notability was still in fact questionable, which is still the case now. SwisterTwister  talk  03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT with a touch of WP:TNT; reads like a personal essay with content such as this:
 * "While it was only a rumor, members of the church began to have trouble with the treatment of the children they were taking care of and this caused other rumors that children died in the house, making it haunted."
 * I'm not sure if it's not a hoax. In any case, not the content one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Its poorly sourced with no real indication of notability. Its just a bunch of unsourced rumors and hearsay.  The two sources that are included prove that the property exists, but do not really say why its particularly notable, and they certainly do not back up any of the outlandish claims in the article.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2016 (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.