Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loamhedge (book)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. Rje 00:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Loamhedge (book)
May be notable, but is currently a badly written summary of the plot. No context. Mgm|(talk) 10:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep The book is part of a very popular series. I've added some context and cleaned up the text a bit. I don't know the book so I suspect it needs more work. --Lee Hunter 12:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on the context provided by User:LeeHunter, I hereby retract my request for deletion. Redwall is indeed notable. 131.211.210.157 13:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Agree with Lee Hunter.  GRider\talk 19:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or (better) move it to Loamhedge, where one can also talk about the place (which is arguably more important to the fictional history of Redwall than the one book is to the series). -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. --Centauri 07:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to Loamhedge. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 23:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)