Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mvomeka'a
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mvomeka'a
There are no cited sources, and the text is very basic Monkeymox 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is a city, let’s be realistic here, a city is notable in and of itself. I do agree it does need a rewrite and have notified the author of the situation. If he does not improve it within a week, I’ll take over the article and rewrite. Shoessss 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if somone can take responsibility for it, I'll remove the tag Monkeymox 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be a fairly reasonable - if extremely short - city stub, and 9as pointed out) cities are inherently notable. I've added a tiny slip more info about its location. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Cities, towns, villages are inherently notable. Could use expansion, though. --Oakshade 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All places are notable, but I think this is closer to a village than a city to be honest. Nick mallory 12:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as real populated place. Should be sourced etc. Punkmorten 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as the subject is inherently notable, this is not the correct place for clean up. RFerreira 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep per above. - Darwinek 09:23, 16 May 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.