Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Gwen Gale (talk | contribs)
m Commune Ango: tweaks
Line 27: Line 27:
*'''Comment''' we have never settled this question. the nearest I can recall is that on the UK Ordinance Survey maps, where names are often assigned to individual farms, are agreed to be deleted. if that can be clearly shown to be the case, by the total absence from gazetteers, etc., and an inspection of the map is relevant if it is obvious, just like the inspection of any other source. But if it is a collection of dwellings amounting to a hamlet, I think it is relevant as a place. This may need a more general discussion with time beyond the 5 days. I'm not sure about the postal address criterion, because the UK postal service certainly did, and perhaps still does, deliver to named houses if the name is known. And what about a traditional country estate, where several dependent families live in dependent separate houses in addition to the main one--is that a place? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' we have never settled this question. the nearest I can recall is that on the UK Ordinance Survey maps, where names are often assigned to individual farms, are agreed to be deleted. if that can be clearly shown to be the case, by the total absence from gazetteers, etc., and an inspection of the map is relevant if it is obvious, just like the inspection of any other source. But if it is a collection of dwellings amounting to a hamlet, I think it is relevant as a place. This may need a more general discussion with time beyond the 5 days. I'm not sure about the postal address criterion, because the UK postal service certainly did, and perhaps still does, deliver to named houses if the name is known. And what about a traditional country estate, where several dependent families live in dependent separate houses in addition to the main one--is that a place? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


* '''Delete all'''. These places are not villages (even the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (''lieux-dits''). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by [[INSEE]];<sup>[http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/nomenclatures/cog/]</sup> by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if being recognized as a [[Communes of France|commune]] by INSEE (see for instance [[Rouvroy-Ripont]]). [[User:Korg|Korg]] ([[User talk:Korg|talk]]) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
* '''Delete all'''. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (''[[:fr:Lieu-dit|lieux-dits]]''). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by [[INSEE]];<sup>[http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/nomenclatures/cog/]</sup> by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a [[Communes of France|commune]] by INSEE (e.g. [[Rouvroy-Ripont]]). [[User:Korg|Korg]] ([[User talk:Korg|talk]]) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:14, 5 July 2008

Commune Ango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable. However, it has been a while since I have been involved in a debate on that matter and consensus may have changed. Thanks for your input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

Commune Carron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Desbassyns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fiague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franche Terre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Neutral for now based on Thierry Caro's comments. I would like to scrutinize available sources on these places, but I don't know if i will get around to that. There just seems to be too many unknowns with these. --Oakshade (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect (it sounds like you know a lot about this) without a RS showing that it doesn't exist, the large number of RS saying it does wins... Hobit (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are clearly not reliable on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than one person saying that, how can you know that? A web search turns up a large number of references to some of the places involved. Not saying the might not be wrong copies of bad data, but they are reliable sources (google maps for example). They might be wrong, but there needs to be some way to show it. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the only way to do it is to look at the Google maps satellite pics and that is indeed WP:OR. Nevertheless, I suggest WP:IAR: The sources, commercial data scrapers which all picked up the same clumsy data dump years ago, are wrong, these are not villages or communities. However, if consensus at en.Wikipedia is such that any farm on the planet which happens to have a postal name rates an article here, then so it'll be. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Corvus cornixtalk 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have never settled this question. the nearest I can recall is that on the UK Ordinance Survey maps, where names are often assigned to individual farms, are agreed to be deleted. if that can be clearly shown to be the case, by the total absence from gazetteers, etc., and an inspection of the map is relevant if it is obvious, just like the inspection of any other source. But if it is a collection of dwellings amounting to a hamlet, I think it is relevant as a place. This may need a more general discussion with time beyond the 5 days. I'm not sure about the postal address criterion, because the UK postal service certainly did, and perhaps still does, deliver to named houses if the name is known. And what about a traditional country estate, where several dependent families live in dependent separate houses in addition to the main one--is that a place? DGG (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE;[5] by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]