Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Phu District

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. Agent 86 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tan Phu District

Tan Phu District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Article has very little context with no clear understanding of what area the article is talking about. In my opinion it is unsalvigable and comes awfully close to beening suitable for speedy for having no context RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same author in the same style, all with very little context:

Hoc Mon District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Go Vap District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Binh Thanh District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thu Duc District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Binh Chanh District (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Comment. These all appear to be districts of Ho Chi Minh City, formerly known as Saigon. I could tell that the names appeared to be Vietnamese, and they all have links from Ho Chi Minh City. I do not know if these districts should be considered as separate municipalities or not. --Eastmain 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment User:Eastmain has now added information to the articles, he has turned them all into stubs and clarified what all the articles are. Whether they merit inclusion - I'm still not sure. At least they now have some form of context to be judged from RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; verifiable, salvageable. Sure, they're in bad condition, but they can be fixed. I'll add them to my imaginary to-do list and try to fix them up and source them eventually - if no one beats me. (Be warned, however, that my imaginary to-do list also involves fixing up not one but two portals in bad condition, so it could take me a while to get to these.) Picaroon 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep A valid encyclopedia topic, though it needs to be substantially expanded and sourced. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. --The Way 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These are articles that can be improved and are an encylopedic topic. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep suburbs are inherently notable, we have arts. for a lot in western cities. ask nominator to put a bit more effort into working out what stubs are about, before bringing to afd.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - they weren't stubs when I brought them to Afd, as I've previously stated in this Afd, User:Eastmain sorted them out and turned them into stubs whilst the Afd was running, the nominated state of the articles was very very poor, and it is only down to Easmain's efforts that the articles now mean something RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Just as much as neighbourhoods/suburbs in other cities articles. I see no reason for these ones. If there's a problem fix it don't delete it. Nlsanand 04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in their current state. Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - These are real districts of a major metropolitan city. --Oakshade 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Those are needing updates from the Vietnamese wikipedia though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.19.60 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 January 2007 (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.