Talk:Lake Tarpon: Difference between revisions
Keep |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I don't see any problem with the article it seems to have a fair amount of relavance. Really not much of a argument for deletion--[[User:St.daniel|St.daniel]] 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
I don't see any problem with the article it seems to have a fair amount of relavance. Really not much of a argument for deletion--[[User:St.daniel|St.daniel]] 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Nomination Removed== |
|||
I removed the nomination. Please keep in mind that the revision I nominated, the article was a word for word copy of the external link.[[User:Michael Greiner|Michael Greiner]] 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:41, 11 January 2007
Candidate for speedy deletion?
I don't know if I didn't cite my source correctly or what, but I clearly gave credit to the source I retrieved my information from.
Keep it
I vote for keeping this article. It's a short article about a lake, which is notable for its geographic significance alone. However, I think what they are looking for is some "re-wording" and "re-writing" of the material. So don't delete it, just re-write it.--Paul McDonald 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep
I don't see any problem with the article it seems to have a fair amount of relavance. Really not much of a argument for deletion--St.daniel 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nomination Removed
I removed the nomination. Please keep in mind that the revision I nominated, the article was a word for word copy of the external link.Michael Greiner 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)