This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is very nice, but unnecessary as an article. Anything non-trivial that can be said about earthen mounds should be said in Tell. UnHoly 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deserving of an article as Earthen mound is an actual physical formation. [1] --Randy 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Mound (which is a bad redirect to tumulus, which is a special kind of mound ) and expand. mikka (t) 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move per mikka, Tells do not appear to be identical with these. Kappa 22:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though an expert needs to do some nomenclature cleanup here. --zippedmartin 00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - could become a nice article. Trollderella 01:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel bad now. I must admit that with the work mikkalai and Trollderella did on the article, it is now worth keeping. Good work! UnHoly 18:44, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.