Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neureut (Karlsruhe)


 * 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. nominator removed AfD template (let's call it nomination withdrawn). Also WP:SNOW. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Neureut (Karlsruhe)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No importance Computermaster111 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: As a populated place whose documented history dates back 700 years, this should meet WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Populated, legally recognized places -- including city boroughs -- meet WP:GEOLAND; with its long history and population of 18K+, it's easily notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I note that the nominator's account seems to have been created solely to delete "Neureut," first via a declined speedy, now this. So you're in for a bit of a disappointment, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover and over, "no importance" isn't much of a rationale and I'll be interested to see if the nominator continues in his efforts to remove content on this location. WP:BITE is one thing. It doesn't excuse WP:Pointy behaviour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not sure how a nom's feeling that a topic is of "No importance" to them is a rationale to delete an article, but as the others have said, it's a documented city borough with a long history and is inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per AllyD and Shawn in Montreal's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2016 (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.