Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleg


 * 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 – precedent has shown that populated villages are inherently notable and that this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to be deleted, see also Articles for deletion/Demqog.  Melsaran  (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleg
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not really that notable - being part of a complete list of similar places doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Rambutan (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Not really notable. And why? A hamlet with a population of 5 people in America could have an article and is regarded as notable but villages in China aren't? All geographical locations have encyclopedic potential value haowever stubbed. These new articles are no different to many of the stubs started in Germany or wherever. It has info on locations altitude and population size and locations on the world map. I am trying my best to rid of systematic bias on wikipedia and fill in gaps in knowledge from a country hardly covered on wikipedia but I am being disrupted from doing so. According to several adminstrators I've come across in the past evey locality has encyclopedic value providing it has some basic facts. This has locator map and basic geogrpahical info and is certainly no worse than many hundreds of stubs on small places that are started daily. But Tibet in particular has extrmeely low coverage on wikipedia and I'm trying my best to counteract systematic bias by covering the world more evenly. There no reason why these places can't develop into fuller articles in future. You'd be amazed how similar stubs I started some time ago on seemingly obscure places have developed fully. It is without a doubt POV. What can your criteria be    ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in bias or any of the comments above. I'm talking about satisfying WP:NOTE.--Rambutan (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

comment the nominator has not even permitted me to try to explain to him why these articles shoul d be permitted. As above he clearly has a disrespect for other editors such as myself by not giving them a chance to explain and to discuss the matter. He has black listed me from trying to attempt to discuss it rationally. The fact that the nominator isn't intereste din bias just goes to show why this article is up for deletion. I seem to remember Jimbo Wales himself talking about counteracting such a biased view of the world as it is one of our core aims to try to ensure globally even coverage however impossible this way be. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Cities and villages are always notable. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - An actual town/village. All population centers are notable regardless of size. --Oakshade 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.