Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zapote Line (Philippines)

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) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zapote Line (Philippines)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has one reference and fails WP:N. Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't think the article entirely fails WP:N, although its not the most notable thing in the world. If someone could dig up some more information that would be great. United States Man (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "One reference" currently existing in the article does not equal non-notability, it just means there's one reference there. In fact that reference is very substantial.[1] There are also other less substantial ones. [2][3] --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If the reference is so substantial, then why is the article so short? Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having stubs. Wikipedia has no deadline. Sometimes articles take years and perhaps decades to grow. I created the article for the actress Valérie Bonneton. Why is that still so short? I don't know. I created it with the expectation people more interested in the topic will add to it. I know that will happen in time, but I have no time limit. This is the same with millions of valid stubs on WP. --Oakshade (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military history of this type is likely to have good paper sources.--Charles (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is fixed and sourced, I am fine with a keep. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2014 (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.