- 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. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are now no recommendations that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizhou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure of the point of this disambiguation page, since the provided articles are modern locations, with no indication of why the ancient incarnations are significant/notable. McDoobAU93 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW with clear consensus to keep. Support speedy close. --McDoobAU93 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Sourced article on the Heilongjiang town created, which is not going away any time soon due to WP:NGEO. I'll get to the Jiangxi one when I feel like it. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. The current red link is a populated place per WP:GEOLAND and thus inherently notable. Two DABs is OK per policy. Philg88 ♦talk 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Philg88 says it all. PamD 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the current version, all of the entries other than Bizhou, Heilongjiang fail WP:DABMENTION. The linked articles do not support the claimed usage and for all anyone can tell without further research, these entries are indistinguishable from a hoax. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. OK, there is at least one other valid entry. I have commented out the others until such time as there is content in an existing article that supports the claim. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 20 June 2014 (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.