Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architecture of Las Vegas

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Las Vegas

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

Unencyclopedic, uninformative, unbalanced and written like a high-school essay. DePRODded after another user supported the PROD by citing WP:TNT Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is probably a worthy and interesting topic, and I can see their is at least one item published on it.... just needs to be re written, and (a Lot) more references Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable topic, and, as Uncle G has demonstrated, there is no need to delete an article before rewriting it, so the essay WP:TNT should never be cited as a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I agree the topic is notable and deserves a killer article. So I guess my question is where we go from here? Could this AfD discussion informally endorse my blowing it up so that someone can start again? I think we all agree it's a terrible article but nobody has yet volunteered to fix it. It would be a shame if the only result of this discussion were 'oh well'. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 12:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Uncle G already has blown it up and started again, and article deletion was not part of that process. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I hadn't seen that that had happened. My watchlist only highlighted up a more recent minor edit. Props to Uncle G. In that case, keep. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 18:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means that this discussion can be closed now as withdrawn with no outstanding "delete" opinions, which is the best possible result of an AfD discussion, being a very rare case of such a discussion where people actually take note of what others have said rather than get into entrenched positions. I don't know how to do that myself and am too busy cooking dinner to spend the time looking it up now, so maybe someone who does know how could close this? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2016 (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.