User:Balloonman/afd/Vanderbilt, the Netherlands3

Vanderbilt, the Netherlands
Again this is not notable and try to see it this time Knorkington&#39;s (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been relisted in accordance with a DRV decision.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:42, 12/25/2007


 * Keep - This was just Snowball Kept 3 days ago because "Real and recognised settlements are automatically considered notable". Respect the decision and move on. Someone should remove this nomination.
 * Neutral - No more opinion one way or the other. Apologies to Knorkington's for the false assumption.  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 12/25/2007
 * Keep It's clearly, and quite rightly, established that even villages this small are inherently notable and for this to be renominated after a snowball keep three days ago borders on disruption. The nominator doesn't even bother to provide a rationale Nick mallory (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I was wrong about this one, my sincere apologies to the nominator. I based my opinion on the supposition that places are notable and it had recently been snowball kept.  If it turns out that it isn't a real place after all then of course it should be deleted and I'm entirely at fault as I should have researched this better, like I often tell other people to do!  Nick mallory (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep . Why has this been relisted? Nominators only contributions are related to trying to get this article deleted, which seems strange.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question. There was a deletion review debate here seems that the original debate was speedy closed. If the place has sources proving it is real then I still say keep, otherwise delete, and please let the debate run the full course. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added that info to the nom.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:44, 12/25/2007
 * Delete - completely agree that hamlets / villages / small towns etc are deemed notable per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, however this appears to be a hoax. Addhoc (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - either a hoax, or so small that it's not recognised by anything, not even it's own municipality. I am tempted to play a WP:IDONTKNOWIT, which is an argument to avoid, but I've been to Texel quite a few times, it's not that big, and I don't know it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a reliable source is found to verify its existence in which case I would change to support its keeping. Had a quick look myself but cannot find anything. Davewild (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the reason for listing this for deletion, as non-notable, is beside the point. We have US towns with much fewer inhabitants than 54. The Dutch wikipedia does not know of the existence of this place however. Only thing that needs be decided is does the darned place exist at all. Any and all keep and delete votes are irrelevant until the existence is either proven or refuted. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, if it exists we keep, if it doesn't we delete. I can't find it in google maps, while I can find the hamlets listed in the Texel template. Addhoc (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not voting but the decision to go the long route here was precisely right. If real, retaining the article is entirely right, and every opportunity should be extended to give the chance to supply that, but if that isn't forthcoming, well, then no tears need be spilt. A chance to prove reality of the community is more than enough, and for that matter, if Vanderbilt turns out to be a hotel, hostel or backpackers crash space, well... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a hoax Will (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Noone has yet been able to verify its existence. At the very least, it should therefore be deleted per WP:V. The article is presumably a hoax. Aecis·(away) talk 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per others, with advice to the nom: wait until the ruddy DRV is over next time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no objection to keeping hamlets, but they must pass WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. Aecis·(away) talk 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -WP:V has to be met by any article. This is the third discussion and still no-one has come forward with any evidence that this is a named place. BlueValour (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. --Lambiam 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:V and is likely a hoax. --Core desat 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A hoax! A hoax! My kingdom for a hoax! --Sorry that just sorta came to me.  Equazcion  •✗/C • 22:49, 12/25/2007
 * Delete. Appears to be a hoax, unless anyone can prove otherwise.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems to be a hoax. I scanned the entire island in Google Maps, which it has in great detail, and could find no such place. Didn't find a bus stop for it either (which are shown on Google Maps.) There is a rather interestingly blocked out area on the southern coast of the island, but I doubt it is under that masking blanket. Ben W Bell   talk  03:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax or settlement which does not exist in the usual sense. I have also scanned Google Maps, as well as scanning a Google search, plus maps by MSN, MapQuest and MuktiMap. I'm not seeing anything. Do not delete as a non notable settlement, as there is no such thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)