Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poldberg


 * 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 for failing WP:V (a geological feature that does not leave a trace of its existence?) In any case, as with any verifiability deletion, the article can be recreated if sources are found. Get in touch with me if you want the edit history. Re Herostratus's comment: we also use "Notability" when we really mean "Notedness". ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Poldberg


Contested prod: reason was WP:NOT for genealogy, which was remedied by adding the geographical feature (the hill near Aalborg). However, among the 261 distinct Google hits for Poldberg, none of them mentions Alborg or Aalborg, making this for the moment an article that fails WP:V, as well as still being for the most part a genealogical entry. Fram 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, based mostly on the geographical entry. Although it does fail WP:V, it's probably true, and could be verified from non-internet sources... I can see why there might not be anything on an obscure Danish hill on the web. As the genealogy, I don't know the exact policy on this, but I think that a description of a surname ought to be at least marginally OK. We should have (if we don't already) articles on the origin of Smith and Campbell etc. without really getting into genealogy, which (I guess) is more about the descent of indivual persons and all that. Now, Poldberg is a pretty minor surname, and the article does tend to border on just being genealogy, but all in all, with the geographical note and the material on the origin of a surname, I think it should be kept. Herostratus 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: how can something fail WP:V and still be kept? It is up to those wanting to keep something to show that the subject is compatible with the Wikipedia policies: just supposing something is true is not enough. If the creator or anyone else wanting to keep this can't provide us with WP:V sources (which may of course be off-line), then we have no choice but to delete it. This looks to me like the information someone gets from a selfmade genealogical search (whether correct or not), not the kind of thing any reputable third party source will have published. The origin of Smith, Campbell, ... has been discussed in major books and magazines, since it is such a common name: the origin of the name Poldberg, and the assumption that they are all rather closely related, is not very likely to be the subject of such major articles though. Fram 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood WP:V; after looking it up, I see that it means verifiable rather than verified. So as to the hill Poldberg, that is presumably verifiable in large Danish library or at the Alborg city hall, if its true, which I assume it is. The family name Poldberg is different. Whether archives kept in Elkhorn or Kimballton or elsewhere exist, I don't know; but they probably do, I'd guess. Granted, verification would be difficult. Now, none of the material is actually verified by cites, but that can be remedied. We are not talking about the material but the existence of the article itself. Generally, articles shouldn't be deleted just because they are bad articles (unsourced or whatever), but only if the actual subject of the article is not encyclopedic - that is, even if the article is cleaned up and sourced etc. it should still not exist. So I stand by my vote. Herostratus 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:V, which makes all the discussion about the encyclopedicity of the content irelevant. Sandstein 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, which states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." We shouldn't be keeping articles because there are "probably" sources somewhere that no one has found yet. Better to not have an article on a topic than to have one that contains possibly inaccurate info that has not yet been properly verified. Once someone does find good sources, the article can be recreated at that time. -- Satori Son 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but not to protect. If the article is re-created with sources then that's fine but having none makes it un-encyclopedic. Rex the first  talk 00:01, 16 November 2006 (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.