Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Lomar

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. Davewild 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Lomar

Republic of Lomar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced, near orphan, of Lomar%22&btnG=Search only 800 Google hits. kingboyk (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I found plenty of info from a wide variety of websites, even if it is not in the article. 800 ghits is meaningless and can't be used as a reason to delete. Many good articles have less ghits anyway, proving that ghits is a handy tool but not that handy. Being poorly cited is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. Easily meets notability. Pharmboy (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely reported in the international press in early 2000s. Subject of a Nigerian passport scam - also widely reported. The article needs cited sources and re-writing, but its certainly verifiable and has achieved a good degree international notability. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's notable let's get the article cleaned up and referenced, folks. --kingboyk 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My first reaction was that this must be a hoax or something fictional. The organisation seems now to call itself the Regency of Lomar Foundation (according to linked websites). If so, Move. The present article remain as a Redirect, but that happens automatically on a move. Peterkingiron 19:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • question redirect to what? The article you linked was empty, so that doesn't really make sense to me. If anything, wouldn't we link the other way around? Unless there were some good cites otherwise. Pharmboy 22:04, 2 December 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.