Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadugi

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 of the debate was keep. Neutrality^talk 18:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gadugi

• Delete. As the sole author, I want this content removed as I do not wish a site that allows lynch mobs and libel and defacement of information to act as a repository for our culture. There's no guarantee that our information will not be defaced by anonymous internet users. I do not consider what goes in on this site to be "gadugi." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadugi (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Several users have edited this article so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion by the sole contributor. if the article is factual, as I presume it to be, it should remain. DES ^(talk) 05:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no valid criteria for deletion. -- MCB 06:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Same as above. -- Friedo 07:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 11:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: subject to cleanup and wikification, this looks like a good article. The impression given from this and other nominations is of a user suffering a hissy-fit because of some perceived slight. However, the information has now been released to Wikipedia under the GFDL which is AFAIK irrevocable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad-faith nomination, WP:POINT, etc. Bhumiya/Talk 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I regret my actions here. Please consider retaining this article if the other editors feel it has merit. Gadugi 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dictdef. That's pretty good criterion for deletion, IMO.  Grue  17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a very important concept in Cherokee culture. It comprises more that just the definition of the word. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There. Now it no longer meets the criteria as a dictdef. Happy? 67.137.28.187 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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.