Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emure


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Emure

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable rural town. Not a notable city in and of itself and one supposed "claim" to fame really isn't. Ogunleye being from Emure doesn't mean the rural town is instantly notable. Attempts to redirect it to its alternate name Emure Ekiti, which has a fuller article, continue to be reverted by article creator. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Consensus is that all real towns and villages are notable. Hut 8.5 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If verifiable. Can you verify Emure is a separate town, rather than another name for Ekiti State, which is the article states it is? And really, there should be some common sense applied here. A small town that has no discussion and can't be confirmed to exist (or can only be barely confirmed) doesn't need an article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency database says that there is a populated place called Emure-Ekiti (with Emure as a variant name) located within Ekiti state in Nigeria, so evidently the two are not the same thing. Hut 8.5 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "-Ekiti" suffix is explained here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why on earth should a town in Nigeria be considered any less worthy of an encyclopedia article than a town in the United States? Just a few seconds work searching on the internet shows that this is a town, and that Emure-Ekiti is a name used to distinguish it from Emure-Ile, not an alternative name for the state where it located. I note that the nominator accused the article author of vandalism for reversing the redirect to the state, when the only possible vandalism was the making of the redirect in the first place. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiny towns in the US aren't worthy of an encyclopedic article either. And my Google searches all pointed to it being the same. And, FYI, that guy had created nonsense articles before, and has been blocked for operating a sock farm, so viewing it as vandalism was perfectly valid. I'm a fag nerd with no friends and got owned -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of noteability through third-party sources. Consensus cannot override policy. Jtrainor (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are plenty of third-party sources here, here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (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.