Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changhua Plain


 * 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. Carioca 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Changhua Plain

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unsalvageably incoherent Gfzh 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and rewrite. The article is clearly on a verifiable and significant place, and just happens to have been written by a user whose English isn't that great. That isn't a reason to delete the article, as you've been told by me and one other admin. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a further note, I've had a go at rewriting the article based on what it seems to be about. Someone more versed in Taiwanese geography might want to pass an eye over it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BigHaz should learn language and read sources before making wrong information - Changhua Plain not east of Nantou County, Changhua Plains east neighbor is Nantou County. Wikipedia: false information better than no information? I not correct mistakes by BigHaz - BigHaz too often claimed I not understand language but he not understand language and adds mistakes to wikipedia. Gfzh 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are able to correct mistakes in the article, then why not correct them rather than sending the article to AfD? This suggests that the article is nowhere near "unsalvageably incoherent". Additionally, my claims in relation to your language ability have been because of your constant willingess to list articles for speedy deletion when they are not in English. Consider this the last warning that you will receive regarding disruptive editing behaviour. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BigHaz introduces mistake in article because article so bad written that even BigHaz not understand, and now BigHaz threaten me for showing he introduced false information in wikipedia when he tried correcting unsalvageably incoherent article without knowledge of article content. Gfzh 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. BigHaz makes a good-faith attempt to clear up an article which was in a rather sorry state but clearly about a notable place. BigHaz, due to his lack of knowledge about Taiwan, makes an honest mistake. Gfzh, who had previously claimed the article to be unsalvageably incoherent, then declares that BigHaz has made a mistake (which, incidentally, BigHaz always admitted may have been a possibility), thereby demonstrating the article to be anything but unsalvageably incoherent and also demonstrating that perhaps Gfzh should have tried to improve the article as BigHaz and another admin suggested before this AfD was opened. BigHaz, who has been attempting since August 24 to help Gfzh, simply cannot assume good faith on Gfzh's part, as his disruptive editing continues. That's what's happened here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or does it seem that it's not the article that's unsalvageably incoherent, it's Gfzh? --WebHamster 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Manners, WebHamster, manners. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems perfectly readable to me. A valid article. --WebHamster 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep clearly notable, &mdash; BillC talk 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks notable as a geographic feature. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like most of the other geographical stubs, readable, concise and notable. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES re: geographical places, and WP:SOFIXIT. Wl219 01:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Geographical features such as this are notable. --Oakshade 02:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.