Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trelowth


 * 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 nominator withdrawal. → εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Trelowth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, no references, too little content. → εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -especially if it has been there since 1086. Sifting through all the autogenerated spam on google is frustrating though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most encyclopedias have entries for historical geographic locations. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of these details were added at the time of nomination. It was simply a single, unreferenced sentence (that old revision can be found here ). → εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. A notable article will always be a notable article, however short. Consider looking for the article in google books if in doubt and ask the creator to try to expand it. It took little more than 30 minutes to produce what we now have but this would not have been deleted even if it hadn't been expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2011 (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.