Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carharrack

Carharrack was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

The information about "Carn Marth" is incorrect, and I can find no corroborating information about the so-called "Pez" character. All that is then left is a statement about a village and its pub - is that sufficient for an article of its own? Timberline 20:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles on real places. Delete the nonsense, put a stub footer on it, and list it on Cleanup.  RickK 20:55, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Population over 90k. I've deleted the nonsense and added a dose of reality. Niteowlneils 22:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Didn't notice the bureau's site had kicked me up to the district level. Doesn't change my vote--we generally keep all villiages and above (but not country club housing or trailer parks, etc.) Niteowlneils 01:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A web site said 1400 population in 1998. It is a village. Anthony Appleyard 23:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles on real places, including schools. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * K Schools don't count as "real places". They have no geographical significance - they are signed into existence by local councils.  Settlements have more profound origins.  No town or village was ever founded on the basis of "this bland spot looks like somewhere decent to pitch a tent". Chris 00:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. Most populated places are pretty boring.  And schools seem to count as "real places" by any definition I can think of.  Some of them are even populated places.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I can, and I just did. So there.  "Real places" in this context are geographical, not social, in nature - rather like the proverbial "street corner".  "Real places" tend to be persistent - a school can be signed out of existence on the spot in Council.  "Real places" tend to be fixed.  Say what you like, but those small villages of 3 people aren't going anywhere soon.  Schools can be moved (my old school moved some 3 miles back in 1984).  We all live somewhere, but it's not equally true that we all go to school.  I know two people that have no formal education, one of which actually paid the fees to take his GCSE exams at a local neutral venue.  "Real places" are inherently notable.  Schools are not.  Those are the facts, and that's the way it is.  Chris 05:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe you are incorrect on all counts. Schools have a history, a community, and a building.  If you have ever looked at a large scale map, you will see that the geographical location of schools in the area are included.  Schools also tend to be fixed, and places can also be moved.  Just because it can happen doesn't mean it happens often.  Not all of us go to school - Since fewer people go to school, that makes them more notable, not less.  This is why universities are more notable than high schools.  I know two people that have no formal education, one of which actually paid the fees to take his GCSE exams at a local neutral venue. - I fail to see the relevance as it pertains to schools.  Schools are inherently notable, however, I am willing to concede that the wikipedia community does not wish to include venues of primary education.
 * Keep. -- [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.