Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria)

Several non-notable small-town buildings and businesses. No references or other evidence of notability. L P ^talk 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three unless references establishing notability can be provided: so far there are none. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unremarkable buildings, not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Zero relevant online sources (Google Web, News, Books, Scholar). Deor (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These three are new articles and are not finished. They should be kept. 65.26.176.123 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These articles have been improved and should kept. Sedna10387 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Sedna and 65.26.176.123 are the same person. If this AfD closes any way other than "delete," I'll see that a checkuser sorts the matter out. Vote fraud through sockpuppetry is grounds for blocking. Deor (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have drawn attention to it I have had a look of the editing history of these "two" users, and I think there is abundant evidence of sockpuppetry elsewhere as well as here. I think there is a good case for an investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my eye on Sedna's editing habits for some time, and I have no doubt that the IP is him/her. Most of the user's edits have been problematic. This is a person who means well, but doesn't know how Wikipedia works and apparently doesn't care. --L P ^talk 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to put on record the fact that 65.26.176.123 deleted "delete" comments by two other editors in this discussion, as can be seen in this edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a building isn't on the National Register, I'm willing to make exceptions for buildings that have unique architecture or that have a unique association with the history of a town. However, these three buildings don't meet that threshold. There's no indication of architectural merit in these buildings, and the only one that even comes close to historic importance is the Junken Building (mainly because it's the oldest building in town). The current uses of these buildings aren't notable. So, I'm going to say delete and say that the coverage in History of Pittsboro, Indiana is adequate. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be kept because these buildings are part of the Pittsboro Indiana history. The coverage in Pittsboro History isn't enough. In these articles It tells about the history of the buildings. Sedna10387 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2009 (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.