Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Istro-Romanian grammar


 * 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The result was Snowball keep/withdrawn by nominator. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Istro-Romanian grammar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unecnyclopedic. More of a grammar guide/glossary, which wikipedia is not. For now, it is unreferenced, but although that can be fixed, the article would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What it needs is cleanup which AFD is not. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I don't think however that the article needs anything less than a complete rewrite, or I wouldn't have brought it to AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The cleanup tag for a complete rewrite is cleanup-rewrite not {{subst:afd1}}. Please read Template messages/Cleanup.  This is Articles for deletion.  Do not bring articles here where an administrator hitting a delete button isn't the solution to the problem.  Even editors without accounts have all of the tools necessary for rewriting articles.  Uncle G (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, nom's concerns are invalid. I agree with Uncle G here, the article needs cleanup not rewriting. I've placed a rewrite tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are scores of grammar articles. See Category:Grammars of specific languages. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the existence of perfectly valid other articles like English grammar and Portuguese grammar, even if this is a minority language.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 04:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems that this is a snowball keep. In my personal judgement I still think it should be deleted, but it makes no sense to let this AfD continue. Instead, I'll go take another long look at other articles and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:06, 20 December 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.