Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loriga

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. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loriga

• Delete. Uncategorized for a while now, and completely incomprehensible. --SonicChao 03:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't the same as when I voted for it, keeping the current stub version is fine. --SonicChao 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete What the...? Bad article, and may be a copyvio,[1] though I don't know which came first. EVula 04:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Rewrite per Marriedtofilm. Thanks for providing that link; I hadn't seen it before. EVula 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a copywright violation, may possibly be non-notable. The (very, very odd) article thingy attached (which is what appears to be the cw violation) seems to be a REALLY bad translation from a foreign language, presumably Portuguese. Essentially incomprehensible, in fact. Unless that mess is removed and viable sources are found and the article is wikified, it's garbage.

Keep, but Rewrite per Marriedtofilm. If it is a real town it deserves an article, but what is currently there needs to be totally removed and rewritten; anyone care to do so and put in a bit of basic info? --The Way 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree that it's currently an awful article. But two very important things - 1. It's a real town in Portugal [2] with over 1,000 people and per WP:AFDP, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." Just by their existence towns are inherently notable. 2. Portuguese Wikipedia has an extensive article on Loriga [3]. Perhaps some translation is needed for us English speakers. As for its current state, now I'd erase all contents, write a stub and let it grow - but definitely worth an article. --Marriedtofilm 05:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mtf is quite right: cities and towns merit inclusion. Eusebeus 13:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I read it and thought of English As She Is Spoke. But a town is a town. It could be added to a list of articles needing improvement. Edison
• Keep. A real town, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I recreated the stub from scratch. The oddly translated version is in the article's history for future reference. This new version is no masterpiece, but at least it's readable! --Marriedtofilm 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fantastic job! I've done a few minor tweaks (and removed {{Uncategorized}}), but aside from that, you and you alone made this a worthwhile article. Good job! EVula 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Someone has already done some further tweaking that I don't really agree with. But as the purpose was to make the article simply legible and have no reason for an AfD, I won't be going to revert battle. --Marriedtofilm 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Someone came along and formatted it a bit better, but I opted to just remove it entirely; its already stated (in my opinion, much better) elsewhere in the article. EVula 17:30, 26 October 2006 (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.