Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strand Theater/Temp

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 Dismissed, as the article has been renamed to Strand Theater, Lakewood and edited by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), however I will delete the now-redirect Strand Theater/Temp. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:52Z

Strand Theater/Temp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. Temp page in mainspace. Not edited by author for 4 weeks Nuttah68 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and Delete Doesn't belong in mainspace, but give the author a copy. Shimeru 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, userfy on request per above. MER-C 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per above. Userfied articles are usually supposed to be moved to preserve attribution history, rather than copied over and deleted.--Kchase T 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect should be deleted, though. That's what I was referring to. Shimeru 23:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, my misinterpretation then.--Kchase T 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. if this theatre has truly been added to the national register for historic places, how can it be considered non-notable? Theatre history is important. I'm leaning towards retaining... Shawn in Montreal 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a bad idea. The previous article was deleted as a copyvio. Thoughts?--Kchase T 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Strand Theatre, Lakewood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC). I have moved it. While it did contain a lot of the same information from the official website, you have to remember that you can't copyright facts. The only phrase that bothered me was "playground for the rich" which I removed. I am glad the creator made a safety copy, or this would have been gone for a long time down the memory hole of deleted articles. The original article should have been edited, not deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work. Definitely a Keep, in my view. Notable. Its placement on the national register of historic places is the clincher, for meShawn in Montreal 18:05, 30 December 2006 (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.