Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztec Pyramids: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:58, 17 May 2005

Aztec Pyramids

No links to this article, content looks as if it were slapped together in a couple of seconds. The external links might worth merging into another article. -- llywrch 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Rick K 22:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. But move to Mesoamerican pyramids, since even the ExtLks aren't exclusively Aztec. –Hajor 23:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Stancel 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but should be renamed to Mesoamerican pyramids with Aztec pyramids being a redirect as the article discusses the pyramids built by other civilisations. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the VfD was added while I was trying to improve the article shortly after it was posted. Since then, the article has been completly redone and is now a very good article. Vegaswikian 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now a good, serviceable article which in the right hands could be on its way to greatness, given the inherently-fasicnating (to many) nature of the topic.Rlquall 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *'''Keep''' but should be renamed to Mesoamerican pyramids with Aztec pyramids being a redirect as the article discusses the pyramids built by other civilisations. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 23:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' the VfD was added while I was trying to improve the article shortly after it was posted.  Since then, the article has been completly redone and is now a very good article. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 01:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' Now a good, serviceable article which in the right hands could be on its way to greatness, given the inherently-fasicnating (to many) nature of the topic.[[User:Rlquall|Rlquall]] 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)