Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mika Alas's House


 * 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. Withdrawn with no delete !votes present (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mika Alas&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this may be a notable monument, but the article is a poorly written essay that seems so meandering that I am afraid this calls for a WP:TNT. It has no inline citations, reads like an unfinished translation by a non-native speaker... It reminds me of one of my students project, if left without proper supervision and guidance. I am afraid there is next to no salvagable text here, only some external links. If it is to be kept, somebody has to write a stub from scratch. So, as I was saying, this needs a TNT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Poor article maybe, but clearly notable subject as a heritage building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As with virtually all "TNT" requests (besides blatant copyvio ones which don't require AFD), the deletion nomination acknowledges validity of the topic, and IMO there is no valid deletion reason suggested. -- do  ncr  am  16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article text was in fact a direct copy of this source that was linked in the article. Copyvio does not require deletion, however.  I reduced the article down to a stub and it is fine now IMHO. Again I think the AFD was not necessary, it could have been reduced down to a stub instead without requiring other editors' attention at AFD. -- do  ncr  am  17:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing nom. I would agree with User:doncram usually, but I found this article so badly written and confusing I did the rare TNT suggestion. Glad it was salvaged. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:58, 22 September 2016 (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.