Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places with fewer than ten residents


 * 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.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

List of places with fewer than ten residents

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Here we have a hopelessly incomplete list, one which can't possibly ever approach even a semblance of completion. Size concerns aside (Russia alone, for example, has thousands upon thousands of rural localities with a population of fewer than ten people; surely other countries in a similar situation exist), the threshold itself (ten people) is completely arbitrary, as witnessed by comments on the talk page. The few sources used in the list merely reference individual entries, but in no way assert the encyclopedic value of the list as a whole. Other concerns include WP:NOT (in particular, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information") and notability. Not even the definition of a "place" is given.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2013; 14:40 (UTC)


 * Delete As non-quantifiable. A list of "places" doesn't really mean anything, as a "place" could be a street or a landmark. "List of municipalities" would probably never be complete either, and I seriously doubt the encyclopedic value of such a list anyway. — Ed! (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I am expressing a concern that this article falls under WP:NOT. A place could mean a road or a settlement, but I don't find this list helpful and notable. Hto9950 (talk &#124; contribs) 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having edited this page few times to add the odd referenced russian settlement, I have seen it grow from quite an interesting list to an unmanageable mess. The uninhabited section is ridiculous and now takes up half the article, despite having a link to List of ghost towns, which surely is duplication. In addition there are places noted as uninhabited that have never been inhabited. This is patently illogial as there is essentially an infinite number of places that could be described as "uninhabited" depending on how small an area you defined as a "place". For the remainder of the article, I have WP:NOT conerns as well (which are also noted by others on the article talk page) as stopping at ten is an inherently arbitrary decision. I can see how there might be encyclopedic value in an article along the lines of List of settlements with one resident where settlement (or whatever word was used) would indicate an officially recognised "place", not just a house or general area, and one that was still in official existence, not one that had been abolished yet still had inhabitants. I don't however see much possibility of constructing such an article from this one as most of the places noted here as having one person populations either are unreferenced in the place's own article or do not even mention population. A shame though because it is quite an interesting set of links. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, per WP:NOT, per lack of notability. Article is littered with unreferenced entries, some of which are more than likely based on original research or estimations rather than anything that is verifiable. Hwy43 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The subject appears to be also be non-notable, and contains a number of unsourced entries, thus original research. It is similar to List of ghost towns as well. TBrandley (what's up) 17:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Such lists in Wikipedia fail because they assume a common worldwide context where none exists. We have had this before with 'cities' which can have an entirely different meaning in North America from the rest of the English speaking world, let alone the problem of translation from other languages. I suspect that the present article arose from US census criteria, but census units may be just a matter of convenience in each country. In much of Europe agricultural land settlement has often led to isolated farms nowadays occupied by a single family - they may be marked on the map by a place name which might be of considerable antiquity, but their size is of no encyclopedic significance in itself. Settlement patterns elsewhere may be different, as are administrative units. --AJHingston (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The fact that they have fewer than ten residents isn't very defining either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete another silly list, for all sorts of reasons. Why 10 and not 11?  Nobody lives in my backyard, and that's a place, so shouldn't that be included?  Disney World has lots of visitors but no residents, so it should technically be listed, as should most shopping malls, office parks, factories, etc.  WP:NOTDIR protects us from this kind of thing. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  05:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above: it is a hopeless mess, and it is not a well-defined list. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2013 (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.