- 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 delete. BJTalk 10:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Koljunak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Crap, no results on a google search, spam, drivel and poorly written The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do not bite the newcomers. I42 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They have many cool houses there? Google search: [1] The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Flagging the article for deletion two minutes after the stub was created by a new user was a bit quick. Before taking this action the first step is to drop a note to the author explaining what they should do to make this a "keepable" article. Being new to Wikipedia, they may not even be watching it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Regardless of the newb biting issue, unless this is a misspelling of something, not much chance for notability. Gigs (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It could well be an incorrect transliteration from the Armenian alphabet. Maybe the correct spelling is kôlǰunak῾or something. The author should be given a bit of time to fix it up - more than two minutes. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you seem to think that this village exists, AFD gives you 5 days to verify that with a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on. I have no idea if the place exists but it may, perhaps with a different (e.g. Turkish) name now. My concern is the speed with which it was put into AfD with no warning to the author. There is no reason for such haste. The author may have only limited access to the Internet, perhaps one day a week. If so, by the time they get back on to expand the article, they will find that it has disappeared. What is the hurry? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if a article is nominated for deletion, the author can still edit it. But the author has not been active since the article was created. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this village does not exist; or, if it does, there is no way of verifying that it does. If someone can verify its existence, I would change to keep as all villages are inherently notable (but only those which are real). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--but Camel, tone it down, will you please? Drmies (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.