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 speedy keep. Interested editors are encouraged to improve this article. LizRead!Talk! 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Clearly notable. If there are issues, fix them. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. My vote is in line with
WP:ATD-E. This article should be edited, as all relevant concerns can be solved by source-checking and changing the wording structure to be more neutral.
Personhumanperson (
talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. The monastery is clearly notable. The presence of "unverified information" is not a reason for deleting the article – instead, find verification or remove the claims.
Maproom (
talk) 23:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very obviously notable. No idea why the nominator thinks they've given a good reason for deletion. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep! Deletion is not cleanup. Malicious users should be blocked!
Kaster (
talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepAfD is not cleanup. The subject of the article has clear notability, unverified information can either be
tagged, removed, or have sources provided.
Shaws username .
talk . 04:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't see anything tagged in the article as unverified, citation needed, etc. at the moment. Thus, even if the nomination statement is true, it's premature, as there is no roadmap to fix whatever problems prompted the nomination.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep clearly notable, no good reason for deletion given.
SportingFlyerT·C 09:22, 16 March 2024 (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.
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 speedy keep. Interested editors are encouraged to improve this article. LizRead!Talk! 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Clearly notable. If there are issues, fix them. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. My vote is in line with
WP:ATD-E. This article should be edited, as all relevant concerns can be solved by source-checking and changing the wording structure to be more neutral.
Personhumanperson (
talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. The monastery is clearly notable. The presence of "unverified information" is not a reason for deleting the article – instead, find verification or remove the claims.
Maproom (
talk) 23:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very obviously notable. No idea why the nominator thinks they've given a good reason for deletion. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep! Deletion is not cleanup. Malicious users should be blocked!
Kaster (
talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepAfD is not cleanup. The subject of the article has clear notability, unverified information can either be
tagged, removed, or have sources provided.
Shaws username .
talk . 04:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't see anything tagged in the article as unverified, citation needed, etc. at the moment. Thus, even if the nomination statement is true, it's premature, as there is no roadmap to fix whatever problems prompted the nomination.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep clearly notable, no good reason for deletion given.
SportingFlyerT·C 09:22, 16 March 2024 (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.