Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Village

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Village

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense and while it is not the best piece of writing, it clearly doesn't qualify. There were too many unrelated google hits to quickly determine if it had any merit, so I'm bringing it here. Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rewrite , finding some geographic coordinates and other basic stuff. All villages are notable. (assuming information can be found to show it does exist). DGG (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the second option of WP:PN, with no objection to recreating an article that's cogent. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I just demonstrated with my edit that took less than 10 minutes, there is plenty of meaningful (if unsourced) content in the article. It is now clear, though not perfect, and assuming the article is based on facts, it is notable and should be kept. Keep unless anyone can demonstrate that the village's existance is itself untruthful. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the precent of places being automatically notable. The cleanup seems to have helped things. (And even if it was still incoherent, that's not really grounds for deletion, unless it's pure, unsalvageable slander). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly didn't fail in its original form the second option of WP:PN - anyone with a good knowledge of English could have worked out what it was saying. All it needed was a bit of collaborative spirit to put it into better English, rather than the sort of destructive spirit that condemns imperfect articles to deletion. This source refers to Karen as a sub-sector of Kunwara. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced soapbox. MickMacNee (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does need a rewrite, but assuming the town exists, towns are notable. --Oakshade (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.