Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukwata

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 (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed...and, truth be told, I never met a Lukwata I didn't like! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lukwata[edit]

Fails WP:N. Only two sources given, and none of them is RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not at my main computer at the moment but i'll try to address these problems somewhat. i think this article is notable, if re-written to show more of a mythological perspective that the external links don't show. also, i'm working on tracking down all my original sources, the first one, which i've just added, is a old journal from the university of michigan, and (from my skimmings of RS) probably qualifies as a reliable source. i'll be better equiped to handle this by saturday, when i get home. thanks Ryan shell (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'm back home and i found one a good source for the article, which should qualify as a reliable source. peace. Ryan shell (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Ten minutes on google convinced me this is the African equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster. Afd process wrongly invoked here. The process shouldn't be used as a shortcut to getting someone else to do the fact-checking.--S Marshall (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - adequate sourcing and notability. This isn't difficult to check, and I'm inclined to agree that this was brought too soon to AfD. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yup, this and this in the article are notable and are probably reliable sources. Other than that, it shouldn't have been nominated for AfD so soon after it's creation... you have to give some time for someone to reference it, and if it has been a reasonable amount of days, sure, nominate it. But in this case, it was nominated too early... but anyway, I'll !vote as keep for now unless something comes up that will have to make me change my !vote. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 19:21, 16 August 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.