Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztec Pyramids: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
vote: Keep |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*'''Keep''' and expand. Definitely worthy of an article. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?</small>''</font>]] 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' and expand. Definitely worthy of an article. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?</small>''</font>]] 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Good topic nominated within 14 minutes of creation, had two good faith links in it. That's sure to be discouraging to new users. (And yes, I did look at the awful text that was there when nominated.) VfD should be a last option, not a first reaction. --[[User:Unfocused|Unfocused]] 05:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Good topic nominated within 14 minutes of creation, had two good faith links in it. That's sure to be discouraging to new users. (And yes, I did look at the awful text that was there when nominated.) VfD should be a last option, not a first reaction. --[[User:Unfocused|Unfocused]] 05:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Excellent cleanup job. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:54, 17 May 2005
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)
- Keep and expand. RickK 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)
- Keep and expand. Stancel 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep Now a good, serviceable article which in the right hands could be on its way to greatness, given the inherently-fascinating (to many) nature of the topic.Rlquall 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Definitely worthy of an article. Grutness...wha? 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Good topic nominated within 14 minutes of creation, had two good faith links in it. That's sure to be discouraging to new users. (And yes, I did look at the awful text that was there when nominated.) VfD should be a last option, not a first reaction. --Unfocused 05:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Excellent cleanup job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)