Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raydon


 * 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, WP:N (non-admin closure). Sean MD80 talk 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Raydon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable village. Niaz (Talk •  Contribs)  13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The very first line of WP:V is Wikipedia is Verifiability not truth. Could you please show me those citations that verify the fact that this article is notable enough to stay on WP? Please do not go for your POV rather add some citations. That will work. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a village, it is by definition notable. All it needs are sources to confirm its existence, such as Google Maps and ViaMichelin. If its existence is confirmed, its notability is confirmed. A  ecis Brievenbus 15:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The consensus is that populated places are inherently notable, and this one easily meets WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is referenced and all places are deemed inherently notable. Apologies for not WP:AGF, but I feel that this nomination may have a touch of WP:POINT due to my criticism of the nominee for a very poor nomination of an obivously notable subject yesterday. Perhaps another read up on policy is required? пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size." Keep. A  ecis Brievenbus 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article could do with an infobox, but it easily meets Wikipedia notability criteria. King of the  North  East  14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator is nominating articles without the slightest discrimination or understanding. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I'm getting concerned about noms by this editor. This article breezes through notability and verifiability. Niaz: If an article has no sources, the first priority should be to source it, not to delete it.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * snowball keep. Niaz, you need to lurk more on AfD to find out what gets nominated, kept etc.  Villages, in fact most places, are always notable.  Merkinsmum  19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:06, 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.