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. John254 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Corner[edit]

Hadley Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This building fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL as it is not even built yet, and sources are not readily available. Prod removed by author after a brief discussion on my talk page. —BradV 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were listed on the web page at creation time. The article was created with "underconstruction". I immediately pinged a person who has helped with this in the past to help flesh out the article, but they won't have had time to notice this yet. Given that the article existed for literally 5 minutes before it was PROD'd, I'd like not only for this AfD to be dismissed, I'd like a better understanding of what provokes people to do this to new articles. I've seen it several times, and all it seems aimed at doing is inhibiting editors. - Denimadept (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people believe have higher standards than others regarding what should be and what shouldn't be in the project, support the deletion of content that isn't extremely notable (Shakespeare, George Bush, etc) and spend time canvassing articles looking for ones that don't match those standards and nominate them for deletion. Then the people who have lower standards and support including content that isn't super-notable live at AfD and serve as a counterbalance. In most cases, it works out in the end. But yes, it's function is essentially to either do nothing or to inhibit editors from doing something that the consensus says isn't notable. Celarnor Talk to me 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that AfD is useless, but I've seen too many new articles attacked that way when it was clear they were just a start. Recently, another person attacked a bunch of new articles about Slovinian bridges. All those articles were kept even though they're still stubs because that's how lots of articles start out. If something is clearly non-sense, I can see the speedy delete, but just about anything needs more consideration. - Denimadept (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More