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The result was Deletion Nomination Withdrawn I agree, this article is now informative and adequately sourced. There is now a clear topic. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na Gbewa[edit]

Na Gbewa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is entirely based on original research and speculation. The topic of the article is also quite unclear, jumping between two different subjects. A google search has 2,700 results and it appears there is a place as well as a person with this name, but I could find sources for the person described in this article. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - interesting, informative article which a bit of input referencing from other editors is rapidly turning into useful information in an area in which Wikipedia is substantially defective. Novice editors, particularly editors from outside Wikipedia's core national communities, are easily deterred by the summary execution procedure that AfD often represents. I'm unclear why the AfD was instigated the day after Kamek98 asked to be allowed a bit of time to work on the article. The tagging seems almost obsessively uncooperative. Opbeith (talk) 15:44, 2 January 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.