Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damu

: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The result was KEEP - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[Damu]]=

:{{la|Damu}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Damu Stats])

:({{Find sources|Damu}})

Article has existed completely without sources, references, or any significant editing since 2009. besiegedtalk 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator Article now meets minimal standards and apparently has the attention of other editors who are interested in approving it, though it may still be recommended for a merge - if appropriate - or similar maintenance if scope and quality cannot be improved enough to warrant a full-on standalone entry for this subject.besiegedtalk 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep Google Books (per :WP:BEFORE) turns up a variety of references now added to the article. It looks as though its extreme brevity might be extendable too based on some of these discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep per AllyD's finds and added references. 'Damu Sumerian' also yields over 500 hits in Google Scholar, a significant fraction of which are about the god. There are plenty of reliable sources out there upon which to build an article and both the GBooks and GScholar results show multiple independent sources showing notability of the topic. A notable topic and a stub with reliable sourcing suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep -- now adequately sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (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.