Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:48, 2 March 2010

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TerraFrost (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins Properties

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:Malleus Fatuorum thinks this is a "self-aggrandizing fluff piece". I don't think it's self-aggrandizing but I will concede that it may be fluff. Also, although I think a speedy deletion is excessive, I don't think an AfD is TerraFrost (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a game of Stick-it-to-Malleus. You're the only significant editor to that article. If you think it should be deleted, say so and (as the only other editor) I'll delete it as G8 (or whatever the number is). If you don't, then don't nominate it for deletion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if it's deleted or not and I have no objection to having its fate decided by consensus (which is what should have happened in the first place) TerraFrost (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close in the absence of a policy-based reason to delete. AFD is not for making a point; if you want the article deleted, please offer a reason why - it's non-notable, it's a violation of BLP, or something. Others have edited it, so your request as the author is not sufficient. If Floquenbeam concurs, though, I don't object to a G6 Housekeeping deletion - but we need a request for that from you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intended it as a way to get consensus - to see what others think. I don't see that as being excessively pointy, either - just as a way of soliciting opinion. Per WP:OWN, this article isn't mine to do with as I please and I don't think it appropriate that I - as the principal author of it - be the one to decide it's fate. TerraFrost (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. The fate of this article is not now in doubt, since Floquenbeam has provided some prima facie evidence of notability. It will live on as a stub, and this is just a pointy waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Speedy Close''' in the absence of a policy-based reason to delete. AFD is not for making a point; if you want the article deleted, please offer a reason why - it's non-notable, it's a violation of BLP, or something. Others have edited it, so your request as the author is not sufficient. If Floquenbeam concurs, though, I don't object to a G6 Housekeeping deletion - but we need a request for that from you. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 : I intended it as a way to get consensus - to see what others think.  I don't see that as being excessively pointy, either - just as a way of soliciting opinion.  Per [[WP:OWN]], this article isn't mine to do with as I please and I don't think it appropriate that I - as the principal author of it - be the one to decide it's fate. [[User:TerraFrost|TerraFrost]] ([[User talk:TerraFrost|talk]]) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy Close'''. The fate of this article is not now in doubt, since Floquenbeam has provided some ''prima facie'' evidence of notability. It will live on as a stub, and this is just a pointy waste of time. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC).