Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prekmurje dialect

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. No real reason to delete, the topic is relevant and all the issues can be fixed through editing. Tone 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurje dialect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article it has no sense, scores grammatical blooper, the text is fully unintelligible, users on end query the sources, are not suitable sources. Doncsecz^talk 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The nominator appears to be engaged in an edit war regarding an established and extensively cited article. AfD is not an appropriate venue for content, inclusion, or redirect issues. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion respect to the quality and lucidity. Article's foreword is correct but other text is discursive and mindless. Doncsecz^talk 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Languages of this size and with the vast sources available are inherently notable. The main issue seems to be over the name of the article, which is better off handled elsewhere. Additionally, "quality and lucidity" are not valid reasons for deletion, and these issues can be dealt with elsewhere. Ravendrop 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I presume that the article's nomination is not related to the name of the article, as Doncsezc agreed to the renaming on my talk page.[1] "No dobro, preimenujem za Prekmurje dialect" meaning "I agree with the renaming to Prekmurje dialect". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kljub temu članek zelo slab, ni uporabnika, ki ga lahko korrigira. Doncsecz^talk 10:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per google translate the above is However, the article is very poor, not the user you can korrigira. Can we stick to English please?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He actually said "the article is very poor, no one can improve it". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article had no AfD tag on it, I have added this. (I believe it was never on there, rather than removed). Ravendrop 21:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given by Ravendrop. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep nom looks rather pointy to me.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither a need for copy editing nor any of the disagreements over content being debated at Talk:Prekmurje dialect are grounds for deletion. Also, many of the cited sources seem appropriate, though I have only read one of them. Cnilep (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (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.