Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livery Dole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 by means of consensus, and no real justification for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Livery Dole

Livery Dole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic, not particularly well-written. Was prodded; prod removed by an IP who removed all prods I made yesterday. Rambutan (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep It's a real place with a history going back nearly five hundred years. What's "unencyclopedic" about that? It now has four sources and a lot of extra information. The Alms house has stood since 1591, and remains to this day, and it was also a place of execution which saw several protestant martyrs burned at the stake. A memorial to two of them is also on the site. The user who removed the prod had a good point. Nick mallory 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It could use some better formatting, but the topic certainly seems worthy of inclusion, and it's not written as a travel guide (which is always a plus when talking about place). Spazure 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sourced (albeit imperfectly) and encyclopedic. Valid historical topic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic though could be improved. --Malcolmxl5 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, no justification given to delete; just saying "unencyclopedic" doesnt make it "un-information", and unsourced can be fixed. John Vandenberg 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Hawkestone 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - but ... and I don't want to be libellous ... "a place of bustling modern commerce" is rather fanciful. Gordonofcartoon 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep nominator provided no good reason to delete. Even if he did, the subject is notable enough. Pats Sox Princess 14:53, 15 July 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.