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 If someone wants to write an article about this, they need to start from scratch anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smith and Kernke Funeral Directors[edit]

Smith and Kernke Funeral Directors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Listed for PROD and I executed the sentence, but then I noticed this is on the National Register of Historic Places. That being the case, I didn't feel an outright PROD was warrented here. I'm opening this up to an AfD.--Isotope23 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it is listed as an Historic site, its not a notable one. Google returns only 11 search results for the title "Smith and Kernke Funeral Directors" (Wikipedia mirrors were eliminated). Most of the 11 search results were only phone and address listings with no information about the historical site. Mkdw^talk 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Ignoring the fact that this article is cut-and-pasted from here (click on "Facilities"), even if this page were not a copyright violation I'd still lean delete, unless it were re-written to be about the building and not the non-notable business. Agent 86 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as this article now has a copyvio flag plastered on it, further input is not possible as the text is no longer available.--Anthony.bradbury 23:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly still is, just click the "history" tab. Agent 86 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: There are more results when you search for "smith.and.kernke" by itself as well as "smith.&.kernke". Most of them are obituaries, of course. Personally, I think the National Register listing is sufficient, as this is not just an honorary designation but a lengthy peer-reviewed process vetted by professionals at the state and national level. But obviously we need a real article, not a cut-and-paste. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 19 January 2007 (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.