Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lount


 * 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 (Non-admin closure) by Intelligentsium.

Lount

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Small village with a population of 50. Only two claims of notability: 1) a murder took place there in the 18th century, and b) it's linked to a specific estate. (Oh, and the author of the article was born and raised there - I guess that's a claim of notability). Singularity42 (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep Aren't geographical places notable? Now granted, it's a small town, but I thought the consensus was for places to be automatically notable. Is there a minimum size defined somewhere? B figura  (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never came across a guideline for towns/villages. I'm not sure if it's possible to make a population number cut-off. For example, would 50 be a problem, but 51 be okay? At the end of the day, WP:N applies. If there is a more notable location this village is associtaed with (such as Staunton Harold, then I would withdraw my nomination in favour of a merge. Singularity42 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Is there a guideline on how big a place has to be in order to be automatically notable? Generally, it seems that we set the bar quite low on locations, so long as they appear on a map, but maybe 50 is pushing it a bit. Nearby Staunton Harold is only 113 people but it is an official parish and has census data, which Lount doesn't. I guess I am leaning towards a recommendation of "weak delete" or "merge" to the nearest location which does deserve an article, probably Staunton Harold if it falls within the parish. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A village. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep since it is indeed impractical to make a population cut off, we have adopted the practice of considering all distinct inhabited places as notable. They merely have to be verifiable as a village, not for example a house that happens to be named on a map. I wish very much we had such simple and effective guidelines for other topics. `    DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, I had no idea there was that consensus when I made this nomination. If that consensus already exists, though, then obviously I would withdraw my nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification - I'm not withdrawing my nomination at this time. What I meant is that if someone can point me to a consensus somewhere that indicates that a village, not matter how small, is automatically given its own article, then I would withdraw my nomination. Until then, I still think the general requirements of WP:N should apply. Singularity42 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no official policy or guideline stating that, but WP:OUTCOMES and WP:Notability (geography) indicate that it's standard practice. --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - All Municipalities recognized by governments, atlases or other significant documents are inherently notable. WP:5P clearly states that, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." hence using this core policy because municipalities are one of the core topics of Wikipedia and Encyclopedias in general such articles, like this are notable. - Marcusmax  ( speak ) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a village then it is notable as per normal practice as the article for rolling up other topics on the locality that are not notable enough for their own article. Keith D (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Inherent notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Keith D. It just needs expanding to include both historical and contemporary information. Jan 1 naD  (talk • contrib) 10:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable, because it is a village. It has been in existence for hundreds of years and, although there are not a lot of reliable sources for it, that is mainly because a lot of sources we use at Wikipedia are on the Internet and the best place for sources on villages is indeed an atlas or government listing such as censuses, surveys etc. Because Lount is a part of these, it has notability. Please do not think that notability can only be established by books and websites.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination - I'm convinced! I find Jolly Janner's point especially convincing - a small village will naturally not have a lot of internet information, but may still have a history found off-line. Singularity42 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 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.