Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Coeur Saignant


 * 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   delete all, per compelling arguments from Thierry Caro and others. That the articles' creator also says delete is also very convincing. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Le Coeur Saignant

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

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I looked them up on the world atlas in microsoft encarta. If someone would care to go through these and add that ref in, I think they class as verifiable.-- Serviam  (talk)  14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Real places which are inherently notable.  It seems an energetic user began creating articles of towns and villages on Réunion and one misguided new article watcher prodded all of them. --Oakshade (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral for now based on Thierry Caro's comments below.  When I have time I want to search for resources more closely on all of these.  There is an argument that even very small communities are considered notable, but just a house or two aren't. --Oakshade (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete These are not communities or villages. See Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The main issue here is quite problematic and has potentially great implications for further rfd: how do you define how many inhabitants are enough for a "village"? If, as our French friend said on the Village Pump, these places all have two or three families, they may all the same pass; I remember that Rfd involving US census locations closed with overwhelming keeps, on the ground that just being a census place. And one of these places, I remember, had only 10 inhabitants, but it passed with great ease all the same (unforunately, I don't remember the place's name, so I can't link you to the discussion; sorry :-; and 10 inhabitants doesn't seem to be different from many of these Reunion localities.--Aldux (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, guys. I am from Réunion. I was born there. I lived there until I was 17. Then came back in 2004. Stayed there until 2007. I am Reunionese. I speak the local creole. I love that place. And I am an admin on the French Wikipedia. I have created the French Mascarene Portal. I have written three good articles and one featured article about my island. All in all, I have initiated about 1000 pages about Réunion there. Today I started eight. Thus, I would be very pleased if there was many articles about it in the English Wikipedia. I would love to see a complete portal dedicated to it here. Yet, I have to maintain that all this stuff listed up there should be deleted as soon as possible. The source AlbertHerring said he used to create these pages is erroneous. Biruitorul told him. I told him, and he eventually said that he would back up a deletion request. What more is required to make you understand that we are talking about tiny groups of houses with no more than a few families − if only they do exist? All the pages that show up on Google are from automated databases set to provide a commercial link related to any square meter on Earth. Nobody with local knowledge wrote them. They cannot be trusted, indeed. There are many mistakes inside. And inventions. Inventions that it would be insane to rely on, unless you are unwillingly wirting Encarta from the antipods. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, and I also share your strong misgivings concerning the source (it's use is spreading across Africa like a plague). We could argue for the deletion of these articles on the impossibility to present even minimally decent sources (that's a difference from the US census localities, as they do use at least one reliable source: the census).--Aldux (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be great to do so, since missing sources is really the question here. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep all, real places. Serviam has proven their existence.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all as their existence as real places has been verfiied. Size is not a consideration; there are articles in Wikipedia about places with zero population. If what's causing a problem is the fact Brittanica hasn't devoted an article to them, or there isn't a bunch of websites about them, then that's a form of bias. Even if they only have "a few houses" as Thierry Caro suggests, they're still actual and verified geographical locations, which satisfies notability. The concern about the legitimacy of some sources is valid, but in my opinion Encarta is a viable source. Something also worth noting is that Google Earth links to Wikipedia articles on places; therefore, someone examining Reunion will see links to these articles, which will allow them to find some information -- albeit minor -- about what they're looking at. Granted, Google Earth is not Wikipedia, but the fact the two have become interconnected in this way simply adds to the argument about verifiable places being notable enough for stubs, at least. 23skidoo (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have you understood that all the Maison up there actually mean House? We are talking about single houses. That is what it is! If you call that notable, we may consider going for Maison Thierry Caro. After all, I have a lot of stuff to tell about this one. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please listen to Thierry. Maison means house in French (not mansion, not estate). These are not villages or communities. In France Metropolitan, more so in the countryside, old individual farms and houses often have names instead of street addresses. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maison can also be the name of towns, municipalities, etc; Maison-Rouge, Oursel-Maison, Maison-Roland, Maison-Ponthieu and La Maison-Dieu for examples.   --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When I asked the creator if these could be deleted, as he'd seemed to indicate in his discussions with Thierry, he replied he replied that I could go right ahead. Because PM added prod tags, I didn't speedily delete them under WP:CSD, but I probably should have done. "Verified geographical location" is poor stuff. You can use Ordnance Survey maps to verify the existence of farmhouses, rocks, copses, a pretty small lakes. We've deleted plenty of those sort of errors before now. Even Fritz's scary bot wasn't going to add places with one or two houses. Failing Rain is a pretty weak source for somewhere like Réunion. INSEE or the like should know of all the inhabited places we'd expect to include on Gazetteer grounds. I'm not sure why this is even being debated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Each of these seems, at best, to be equivalent to a small housing development in the United States (say, a dozen homes). That doesn't make them notable.  Given the person who created them has acknowledged the mistake, let's clear them away.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE; by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (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.