Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kottem


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Kottem
This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

In fact there is a hamlet in Sint-Lievens-Houtem called Cotthem. No more than a circular road boarding on the Polbroek (which has also been turned into a metropolis as Polfbroekstraat). It was a hamlet of the village of Oombergen, which has been merged into Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Now, all that is already on the page of SLH. How can Sint-Lievens-Houtem, which has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, harbour a hamlet with 39,070 inhabitants?

Of course, I can provide pictures of this circular road (I happen to live in the neighbourhood - it is nice cycling there), but somehow I think that even a letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem is not going to convince those people (are there really four of them?) who are prepared to create a parallel universe.

What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy pgp 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following pictures show what a great metropolis Cotthem now is. Unfortunately, the only economic assets of Cotthem, two special beer pubs and two good but pricey restaurants are not shown here: The walk started in the centre of Sint-Lievens-Houtem, so forget the first picture, which shows the church of SLH (not that it has much of a big apple feeling, by the way). If someone thinks this piece of the world needs mention in Wikipedia, because it is so peaceful there (one of the quietest places in East-Flanders) or because the Romans built part of Cotthem (the street, I mean), or because there is still a bridge over what used to be a tramway track long ago, go ahead ... User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it be allowed to use one of these pictures (the Roman soldier, for instance) in the article?
 * Luckily for you, it is not a Roman soldier, only a "monument" (to point out that the Romans built a street here, and no they did not build this whole street, only a small part of it) - so Belgian portrait right does not apply. Belgian copyright is at stake here - you will have to ask the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. But I'm sure they will think it such a good joke to make a Wikipedia article about this street that obtaining their permission will not be very difficult. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I figured it was probably a statue of a soldier, since there were no cameras in Ancient Rome/Belgium. I'll have to ask those folks about it. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fram 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Your nomination gives no reason to delete the article besides that it "is a disgrace to Wikipedia." Those pictures of Cotthem establish that it does indeed exist, and if it's large enough to support 2 restaurants and 2 pubs, then it ought to be kept. Your pictures also establish the history of Cotthem, and you seem to know about the area. Why not add to the article? syphonbyte 01:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please realize that this is not an "area". It is a STREET running through green fields and an artificial wood. It does not "support" these pubs and restaurants, people from elsewhere come there (wonderful place to walk and cycle) to drink and eat. Just look up Cotthem 1 and then Cotthem 6 and Cotthem 9 in www.mappy.be (6 and 9 are the two pubs by the way) and you will see how far away houses are from each other. Basically it is a very quiet place which explains why people like to have a pint or a meal there. I did not know much about the street, I just looked on the website of the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. And I happen to understand the captions which appear when you hold your mouse on these pictures. And no, I am not going to add to an article which claims this is a city of more than 30,000 inhabitants, when every Belgian would find it a joke if it was in the Dutch-speaking Wikipedia - and we tend to put hamlets there which have fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. This street is not Wall Street. And no, I do not live there either (in case you are starting to think I am a nimby and want to keep it quiet). So my basic argument is: if you make an article about this street, you will have to make one about half of the streets in Belgium. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy---pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That argument is not valid, you do not have to make articles about everything of comparable notability just because one exists. You still haven't provided a reason to delete the article beyond "it is a disgrace" and "this is a street," both of which are not reasons to delete an article. I still have seen no evidence beyond your claims that suggest that this is anything other than a town. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are defending articles about things you know nothing about, as has been shown before. You and your friends only started to look at what Gotem really is and introduce that into the article after the AfD was filed, even though you had had two years of looking into it before, but just couldn't be bothered. Now you are trying to do the same all over again here, and will probably on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat as well. While Gotem was, luckily for you, an existing, though small, village (even though it had nothing to do with the original nonsense article), you don't have such an easy escape here. Take a look at this ViaMichelin page, and click on the map to have a better look. You can see that Kottem, Polfbroek, and Eiland, are three streets around the market of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. These are thoroughly non-notable and have no reason at all to be included in Wikipedia. If one of them has even one interesting, encyclopedic fact about them, add it to the main article about Sint-Lievens-Houtem.
 * My question to you and The Raven is still standing: why did you bother creating, modifying, and defending articles about places you know actually nothing about and had no idea about their importance, notability, or whatever? Was the only reason that they somehow turned up in your search for words similar to Got'em and Caught'em (probably the "first battle of Gotem", since the recent one is described as the second one)? I don't mind that this all started as a joke, but it has grown very, very stale, and the little bit of respect you as a group gained by correcting finally the Gotem article is rapidly disapearing again. Fram 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Frankly this is irrelevant, although I could take the time to answer this question, it has no value in this discussion. The point is an article was created about Kottem, and some of us believe it is a town, the others a street. The latter group vehemently advocate deletion, while the former group attempt to fix the article and make it truthful/verfiable. I have yet to see any usefull contribution to this article from those who advocate its deletion, while (surprisingly enough) they present such contributions only on these 'votes for deletion' pages. If I were to make an analogy, we are a group of workers attempting to erect a building, while a crowd of jeering kids shouts at us with insults and various demoralizing statements from below. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It exists. If its wrong fix it. What is there more to talk about? It would be nice if you could provide pictures though.--The Raven 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That something exists is no reason to have it in an encyclopedia. It has to be notable. It is not. An article has to be possible that is more than a stub. It is not. If (a big if) anything of encyclopedic importance can be said about the street, add it to the Sint-Lievens-Houtem article.
 * Untrue, an article need never become more than a stub. Many articles can't become more than a stub but are still notable. syphonbyte 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. See e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]: "City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable". If you can only make a stub from a street, then it is not notable. Furthermore, the current article lists nothing about this street that is true. Even worse, there is no street with this name, it is a typo in some database. I have not seen one textbased article (i.e. not a map) which says anything about this city or street, so why should I assume it exists and has any notability? Find me some information that shows it has notability and enough can be said about it to have an article about it. Until then, "Delete" is the only possible vote.
 * Beyond doubt it is notable, as User:Pan_Gerwazy has shown (in this very discussion!). If its a street then simply change the article. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I chose a beautiful place to get my username form. Damn. It’s magnificent. Thank you for the images, Pan Gerwazy. Polfbroekstraat 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Meta-comment The line above this is NOT by me, and is wilfully confusing. Note that this AfD is about Kottem, not Polfbroekstraat. One of this gang of four (perhaps the same one) also has a nickname "Gotem". So he was confused himself as well, I guess. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that by now someone has re-arranged everything to make this apparent stupid attempt at impersonation disappear. Hm, why copy paste the adress of my user talk page, when typing Pan or pgp is so much easier? Of course it is rather difficult to do away with the other problem. That someone is confusing Polfbroekstraat with Cotthem - and therefore conceding that both are the same. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment He wasn't attempting to impersonate you, he was thanking you for the images and had a link to your page to show that it was you that had shown the images. I don't really get what you're talking about in the rest of your comment, I assume it has something to do with the accounts Polfbroekstraat and Gotem, which belong to different people. Gotem is my account. syphonbyte 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course that's not by you, it's by Polfbroekstraat the user. And "Gotem" is me, I have always made this very clear, including on my user page where I highlight this. syphonbyte 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Polfbroekstraat (or the street Polfbroek if you will), is right near Kottem I think. Correct me if I am wrong.... The Raven 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a street, absolutely not a town. If you think is it, please provide a link to the PDF from the Belgian Institute for statictics, like is done on Gotem. You won't be able to do that. --Tuvic 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to get snippy Tuvic. Its just an online enyclopedia so dont get your panties tied in a knot. If its a street then just say its a street. I am sure there are plenty (to lazy to serach) street names listed in Wikipeida. Therefore KEEP.578 &#91;&#91;User_talk:578&#124;(Yes?)]] 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice move, to not respond to my remark, but to go for the emotions. But, once again, please provide official information from the Belgian Government. --Tuvic 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should I have to provide the link, I know this is true becuase I helped write it. How about you who me a link where you search for it and you cant find it. (578)
 * Strong argument: it's true because I wrote it. Ridicilous. If it's existing, finding official Belgian government info should not be difficult. But it does not exist, so no official information can be found. And don't try to reverse the roles here: you have to provide information is exists, not the other way around.--Tuvic 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as hoax per Tuvic (unless I see some links to statbel). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is obviously not a hoax, we have even seen pictures of this. If it's not a town then change the article to reflect this. syphonbyte 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are a sockpupptet of Tuvic and then Tuvic is a sockpuppet of Farm. So you all are a bunch of sockpuppets that for some reason like to delete articles. You never know if some kid (lets call him little jimmy) is trying to find information on this subject and wikipeida dosent have it. Think of little jimmy and how hurt he will be 578 &#91;&#91;User_talk:578&#124;(Yes?)]] 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet, but a Belgian contributor for the Dutch Wikipedia. --Tuvic 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Prove it. (578)
 * Just follow the link at my userpage to the Dutch wiki. Or deliver prove that I'm a sockpuppet. --Tuvic 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep It would seem there is enough information to keep Kottem as a separate page.--Polfbroekstraat 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom. Possible hoax.  --  ⬬-tǧŭïøŭş  4lĭfĭ-   ♫   ♪
 * You sig pains my eyes, whats wrong with just basic plain text.

Keep This article is a notable region of relative not unimportance thus it shouldnt not be undeleted. --Charlesxavier 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotem A credible vote. Thanks charles. --578 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Lambiam has changed the page to the point where both the first sentence of my proposal and the "hoax" will sound rather harsh to newcomers to the page or this proposal. I note that under these circumstances the main argument for deletion will be that if you make an article about this street, you will have to make an article about at least half of the streets in Belgium. So if Lambiam's version will endure, the deletion is necessary because this street is not notorious enough - by far. Note that in the category "Belgian streets" Kottem has the company of only the E17, the E19 and the E40 - the disparity in notoriety is enormous.User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy
 * Delete it's a road in the middle of nowhere, it's hardly Rodeo Drive, the fact that this article is defended by people who have had a habit of creating nonsense articles just makes it worse. -- E ivindt@c 09:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, Tuvic and ivind. --Lambiam Talk 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable and perhaps a hoax. ScottW 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Unfortunately, that's not an argument for deletion. The street is notable because it is a street; the fact that there is an article on it does not mean we must arbitarily make articles about all streets in Belgium with similar notability, it simply means that such articles would be allowed. It has been established on numberous AfDs that the standards for notability on Wiki are much lower than the notability of this article, and it is commonly believed that we should follow precedent. This is not the place to try and set a new precedent, and we are not the people to do it. You STILL have not given any real reasons to delete this article. Thus, the article MUST be kept. Case closed. syphonbyte 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No, a street is NOT notable because it is a street. In fact, possible precedents have been dealt with already. From : "Cities and shops:
 * Attractions and landmarks are notable; however, touristic information should be listed on WikiTravel
 * Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel
 * Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size
 * Malls and shops are not generally notable
 * Suburbs (note for Americans: see suburb) should generally be listed under the city they're part of" (hm, since Gotem is a minor suburb of Borgloon ...)
 * No reason to include Cotthem as a tourist trap therefore, should go to Wikitravel. And about streets in the same article:
 * "Transportation and geography: ...
 * Highways and interstates are notable
 * Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not on a separate article
 * City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable"
 * So, CITY streets are CONTESTED. Sint-Lievens-Houtem is hardly a city - fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Delete. Since you said we should follow precedent, case closed indeed. [User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy]]--pgp 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you knew this information, why didn't you put it in the AfD at the beginning? It's taken roughly a week for all of this to come out; the fact that Kottem is actually the road Cotthem and that it's non-notable. I was under the impression that it was a town and thus notable. If you'd pointed this out at first, perhaps I would have voted delete initially, as I did with Polfbroekstraat. I'm not in the business of keeping unneccessary articles; I'm in the business of defending articles from unneccessary deletion, which is what triggered all of this when somebody speedy deleted this and a number of other articles. syphonbyte 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Syphonbyte, two things: first, the fact that Kottem is nothing more than a non notable street was added to the AfD at the beginning: "What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!" (last line of initial post to the AfD). So it has not taken roughly a week for all this to come out, it was there right from the start. Furthermore, you created the article: it is your responsibility to make it truthful. If you don't know anything about the subject (as you have shown conclusively on all the articles involved and the project), don't bother creating an article, and even less start contesting the deletion of it (speedy or not). As has been shown over and over again, this isn't or wasn't an "unnecessary deletion". It is you and your friends who are wasting everybody's time, not Pan_Gerwazy. Fram 07:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Syphonbyte, if your approach were correct it would be very easy to introduce non-notable items in Wikipedia. When you create the article, put some completely incredible stuff there. Make it a copyvio for good measure, with info that readers can use to google up a webpage from a credible source (the BBC or the EU) which also gives a link to the website where you stole the text. So that even after the AfD, someone who comes to vote for deletion, gets worried about the consequences for the Wikipedia project and starts correcting. After which the AfD quoting a hoax is in trouble. BUT even if it were feasible, there is still one little problem you will be faced with: neither Kottem nor Polfbroekstraat exist in the real world, where the official names are Polbroek and Cotthem. So, the hoax element basically remains. Fram, thanks for pointing that out - so I do not need to revert the changes in the article to the hoax. Saves me some time. Talking about losing time, someone does not know how far Gotem is from my house: User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no time or patience for your wild accusations, and I do not appreciate them. If you have anything constructive to add to the article, then please, do so. Otherwise I believe this case is closed. Delete. syphonbyte 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in many countries, publishing a machine translation of someone else's text constitutes a copyright violation. To be fair on Syphonbyte: we are all convinced he did not really do that - he invented it all (see Talk:Eiland). And when he was found out, he immediately took the reference out. In spite of everything, for me Syphonbot and his friends are perfectly welcome to put Cotthem (and only Cotthem) in Wikitravel as a tourist trap. Unless they get blocked first, of course. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 12:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. And please, block the guys who started it. Ellywa 07:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not waste more time with those users, Block them.--Walter 08:24, 23 June 2006 (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.