Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hesarooyeh
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hesarooyeh
It seems unencyclopedic. It also seems to not be adhering from a neutral point of view, such as "his well researched book titled: The History and the Culture of Shahr-e-Babak".
talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verifiable human settlement, per National Geospatial Intelligence Agency gives the spelling as Ḩeşārū’īyeh [1]. (call) 05:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verifiable settlements are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - needs improvement, not deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CaliforniaAliBaba and per AWP:Energy conservation. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Actual settlement. NPOV is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. The article could just say "Hesarooyeh sucks" and I'd still vote "keep," and obviously improve.--Oakshade (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2010 (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.