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. nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Battle Hill[edit]

Battle of Battle Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A very poor quality article on a real battle which was part of the New Zealand land wars. Consensus on the talk page is that it would be better to delete this article and leave the option for someone to write a decent article at some future point, rather than try to salvage it. gadfium 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to withdraw this AfD now that the article has been rewritten.-gadfium 08:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 04:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has true potential but this is unsalvageable. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just re-wrote the article as a stub, and cited it from a couple of reliable-looking sources. As there seems to be no debate that the battle was notable, there seems to be no reason to delete. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The new version is concise and seems accurate as far as it goes. I agree the previous version was very poor. -- Avenue (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if Nick-D hadn't rewritten it, WP:DELETION requires us to fix problems that can be fixed by edit in preference to deletion, and it was clear that this could be fixed by editing. AFD is not for article cleanup. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JulesH. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:20, 22 January 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.