Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pambokancha


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Pambokancha

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Needs to expanded. Only one reference that is not detailed or directly related to the topic. Whenaxis (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: When I created this article I was unaware that there was only a single source. That being said I debate your claim that the source is not detailed or related. The 'abc' news article talks extensively about the site and includes quotations from the archaeologist who excavated it. It's extensive 'closing ceremonies' and unique architecture make the topic notable. I had plans to expand the article, but haven't yet finished the draft I was working on in my userspace. Since the site is so new, it is likely that no further information has yet been published on the topic. I understand though that due to lack of further sources it may be best to merge the information.- France3470 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would think an ancient Incan religious site in itself would be automatically notable. Archaeologists have found evidence of Incan social behavior at this site which furthers its significance.  The ABC source demonstrates notability.  Coverage also comes from the Archaeological Institute of America.   "Needs to expand" is a reason to expand it or place an expansion tag, not delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well if it is so notable why wouldn't it be long from the beginning. If its this short (one line) since the beginning I would expect that its not notable since there's very little available information on it. Plus, if the site is new you should wait till there is enough sources to back-up the article then you can put on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia has a major problem with these 'expansion' tags and other tags I see them everywhere that's been posted for years and yet nobody wants to expand because there is no further information on it. That's why I nominated this article because people see the tag that says 'It needs to be expanded' but nobody cares about it. Whenaxis (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While it might not be your intent, these comments indicate this AfD is a case of WP:POINT, that you don't feel there should be articles that you feel will never be expanded and this is some kind of test AfD. There are many reasons other than notability for articles to remain short for many years.  I created the article for Independent Spirit Award winner Debra Eisenstadt over 3 years ago and yet it's still a stub.  I can't explain why, but non-notability is not the reason.  If you'd like to start a meta-discussion on the articles that haven't undergone any significant expansion in a while, you're free to do so on the relevant policy and/or guidelines talk pages.  Starting an AfD for the purpose of expressing your general feelings about this project is only disruptive. --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The site's history as an Incan religious site and its archaeological significance confer notability on the article. The nominator's comments are hardly valid; stubs are still legitimate articles, and the source is devoted entirely to the topic. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I say the article would never be expanded? I just said that since there's very little information on the Wikipedia article that it would of been non-notable its just a description of the location - from the one source you (the creator) could of added information on the many facts and a description of what may of happened at this historical site. I also said that people aren't willing to expand on articles like this one that don't have many sources that back it up that's why this one isn't be expanded. Besides this AfD is inter-related to the article and the Wikipedia expansion project AND its a free country I have the right to freedom of speech and say my opinion. Whenaxis (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Nominator hasn't stated a reason for a deletion, only a request for expansion and better referencing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Not even the nominator is asking for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2010 (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.