Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division No. 1, Subd. O, Newfoundland and Labrador

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 18:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Division No. 1, Subd. O, Newfoundland and Labrador
Non-notable. TigerShark 00:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep If we are going to have an article on every place in the U.S., I don't see why not in Canada. This is an unorganized census area. This place does exist, see here: -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 01:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes it may exist but, according to the article, the population is 687. I'm not sure that's enough, in its own right, to make it notable. Do you know if there are any other facts that might increase it's notability? Cheers. TigerShark 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A place's population does not make it notable or non-notable. In fact, we have a whole page dedicated to places with less than 10 people. See List of places with fewer than ten people. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 02:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes Earl. I didn't say that it made it non-notable (I'm not sure that anything can be made non-notable anyway, rather it is non-notable due to a lack of anything to make it notable). I just said that it didn't make it notable on the basis of population. That is why I asked if there was anything else that might make it notable. Also, I would suggest that high population could in itself make a location notable (although a location with a high population would almost certainly have something else to make it notable). Cheers. TigerShark 10:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Spinboy 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. EA is right, D1SO rates as important as most of the geographic entries we already have. But be fair -- TigerShark isn't being US-centric. D1SO sounds unimportant, because it doesn't have a name. Isaac R 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreeing with Isaac R - IIRC a very important city in Soviet Russia didn't have a name, just a zip code. KickAir8P~ 02:31, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
 * This is like Sherwood No. 159, Saskatchewan, which I expanded out of a substub during its vfd a few months ago. Some weird naming conventions make real localities, at the right level of granularity, seem less important than they really are. Keep real places. Samaritan 02:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep real places, except for the occasional shed in someone's garden. Kappa 03:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but forget intentional sheds as well. Mikkalai 04:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all real places. RickK 07:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep all real places" goes without saying. But determining what's a real place takes a little thought. "Division No. 1, Subdivision O" sounds like some arbitrary mapmakers thing, but turns out to be a real place. Sandhill Farm sounds like a real place, but is just a name 5 people gave to the farm they live on.
 * Keep all real places. Including notable sheds.--Gene_poole 00:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep real places listed in census data. Potential for expansion in terms of history of district and community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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