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. Shimeru (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoletorp[edit]

Spoletorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Three year old article that fails to assert notability of the subject. The only link within the article appears to be broken. An external link was added today as the result of the prod, but it is a primary reference that can not be used to assert notability. AussieLegend (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommendation: KEEP
  

This is a standard and reasonably helpful stub that forms part of Wikiproject Sweden. The editor in question who raised this for deletion has been stalking my posts, and undoing them ... which is also how he got here. This appears to be a little unhelpful. The broken link has been removed, and the page seems to be working quite nicely. It might be more constructive if AussieLegend could help improve the article, rather than placing inappropriate deletion tags on it. (KrodMandooon (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please, assume good faith and don't make baseless allegations. You made a number of edits to Anzac Day, an article that is currently protected because of excessive vandalism. Some of those edits have been reverted by other editors. Included in your edits was restoration of previously challenged content that had been deleted. I only arrived at Spoletorp because it had been added to Anzac Day and I was tyring to find out what or where a Spoletorp was to confirm that it was notable and appropriate for inclusion in Anzac Day. It clearly is not, which is why I prodded it. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pleased to hear that. Unfortunately, several of your recent edits at Anzac Day appear to be mere undo's of almost any change introduced by any number of editor's making changes to that page. You appear to be asserting some kind of personal 'ownership' of the page, as your chosen name would also seem to attest. This is not the forum for any problems that might exist on Anzac Day, and I remain confused why you have brought this discussion here. KrodMandooon (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I will ask you to assume good faith and stop making baseless allegations. As I indicated above, Anzac Day has been the target of excessive vandalism. The reversions that I have made have been reversions of vandalism. The discussion on Anzac Day only occurred to refute the poor faith baseless allegations made by you as part of your Keep recommendation, allegations that you continue to make, which are most definitely unhelpful. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming my talk page. Please also stop spamming the Spoletorp page with endless tags. When the tags are addressed, you just add more. This is really way outside 'good faith'. KrodMandooon (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These comments have nothing to do with this AfD. However the warnings at your talk page have been valid. What was not valid is your response to my attempts to improve Spoletorp by bringing it up to some sort of reasonable standard by fixing the layout, and adding templates that highlight the various issues that the article has.[1] Your constant reversion to the poor state that this article was in,[2][3][4] does not help this article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  

What is the fuss about? Page looks fine. Tags appear spurious. --Baulkhamhillsrsl (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tags that you think are spurious, but which identify valid problems with the article, have nothing to do with this AfD. The article was nominated because it is not notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article sat without sources for over three years; the only source provided is for a minor detail and from a primary sources. I'm not convinced that being the most expensive residence housing is an assertion of notability anyway. So, in the end, the article fails both key requirements: the subject isn't shown to be notable, and only the smallest portion is verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication that this student housing is notable. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Whpq. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (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.