Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestina, United States Virgin Islands


 * 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 keep per WP:SNOW and the notability of villages (non-admin closure). Sean MD80 talk 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Palestina, United States Virgin Islands

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Niaz (Talk •  Contribs)  13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me how do I know that this village is located on Earth or on the Moon? Does it have any citation? Please go through the first line of WP:V. Hope that will help you. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the lack of sourcing is the issue with this article, then say so in the nom. Don't say "non-notable", because you might just make us think that you were thinking this article should be deleted because of a lack of notability. And villages are by definition notable, regardless of their size. A  ecis Brievenbus 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:N, especially the part that says editors should check for sources themselves.(*) Please consider using Google before tagging for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size." Keep. A  ecis Brievenbus 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per long standing consensus that villages are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator has no understanding of site policies. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Villages are inherently notable. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
 * Strong delete unless it can be shown to exist. Google maps is not the be-all and end-all of verifiability, but as a first stop it does not give promising results (a location in the US Virgin Islands comes up, but as an address in "Emmaus"; the satellite view just shows a road through the National Park - no sign of any buildings). --Paularblaster (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per source added and overwhelming consensus on WP:Inherent notability of defined and documented places. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy keep. The nominator is being extremely unhelpful by nominating for deletion a series of articles on real places, simply because they have just been started (within an hour and a half of nomination) and I had not yet got around to adding further details - including references - which I planned to do today once I was awake and had a work break (and as I am currently in the process of doing). The nomination of brand new articles on communities is extremely unhelpful - I would advise the nominator to look for other things to busy him/herself with. Grutness...wha?  23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 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.