Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fermentelos


 * 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. Invalid deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing. Furthermore, I read the nominator's comment below as "withdrawn". (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fermentelos

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Speedy was declined. This article is way too short to be an article. I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs Talk  02:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - Why was an article of a town nominated for speedy deletion within an hour of its creation?--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm endorsing this, but if you look at the new page log, there were about 70 of these, if not more, created within a few minutes of each other. I was on NPP at the time, and there was a gigantic flood of one sentence stubs on Portuguese towns; it almost looked like someone was using a spambot.  I'm not sure if/how often you do NPP, but it's fairly easy to have knee-jerk reactions when you see that.  Inka888 and I have started a conversation on the user's talkpage so that next time, this user will at least include a reference and a little more information.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In 2002, User:Ram-Man and his bot and other users auto-created most of the United States geo-stubs based on 2000 Census data. Lompoc, California, for example.  It was very useful as there are literally tens of thousands of towns and population centers in the US.  I don't really have a problem if a similar effort is embarked on town stubs for other countries.  If there are any "false positives," places that aren't really towns or population centers, like with the US, there won't be many.  As for this article, this was definitely not one of those, which I think you agree with. --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you&mdash; I just wanted to provide a bit of context. I've been doing NPP for several months and I've seen this sort of thing before, so I knew what was going on, but I'm not surprised that someone newer to NPP didn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * agree, usually pages of this nature atleast have an external link with the documents, but on this, there is none to be found. Talk ToMe cintel ati 03:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the official government website that documents facts of the town. I found this rather quickly. --Oakshade (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - "Too short" is not a valid deletion criteria. It's only a reason to keep an article so editors can expand it.  Looks like a town to me.  According to the Portuguese Wikipedia page, it has over 3,000 people.  There's no such thing as a "non notable town."  Perfectly valid geo-stub.  --Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Towns and communities have been held to be inherently notable. Poor nomination for both CSD and this AFD ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, towns are inherently notable. "Too short" is not a criterion for deletion. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated above, towns and the like are inherently notable. Just because it's very short doesn't mean it's not a valid article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As above, settlements with official recognition are inherently notable. For UK settlements, a reference to the relevant Ordnance Survey map is usually sufficient for a stub. Is there a Portuguese equivalent? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the above.  He  iro  19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like i tagged it too quick. I n k a 8 8 8 Contribs  Talk  22:37, 24 October 2010 (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.