Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ġnejna Bay

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The result was withdrawn by nominator -- article sourced and improved -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ġnejna Bay

Ġnejna Bay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic; could be just a small strip of beachland. Obviously things would change some with some sources, but this doesnt belong here in the meantime. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete A google search brings out no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, there are also notability concerns as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to wait for some local input; it may just be a lack of English sources. --Haemo 05:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Local input? This AFD is only open for five days. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article but replace its contents: they are a clear copyvio of this website. If you drop the diacritic, you'll find plenty of references on the web. The area seems notable enough, but the article has to be cleaned up asap. --Targeman 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unecyclopedic and 3 sentences worth of bad grammar and POV violations. I would almost guess it was created as a joke, and looking at the author's other work would confirm this. Pharmboy 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm working on the article right now, give me a couple of hours. Gnejna Bay exists and is a popular tourist attraction, no hoax here. --Targeman 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• There, I'm done. It's still stubby, but I think it doesn't qualify for deletion at its present form. Please have a look at it now. --Targeman 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The first two references do not use the term "Gnejna Bay". Third is a map. All 4 sources are from 2 actual sites. I still think the place isn't notable and the article should be deleted. Pharmboy 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look closer. The sources that don't use "Gnejna Bay" are about public nudity. The map has abundant text beneath. And the sources are highly reliable. Google the orthographic variant "Gnejna" (without the dot) and you get 12,300 hits [1]. --Targeman 15:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the rewritten version. The controversy over nudism and the asylum seekers being picked up there seem to get it over the threshold. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Generally geographical features like this are considered notable and the controversy cited by user BigHaz demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 06:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All, I've added more content. Please take another look at the article.--lamato

• Withdraw - greatly improved; sourced now -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:55, 28 July 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.