Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohrbach an der Lafnitz


 * 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. Courcelles 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rohrbach an der Lafnitz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This Article Has No Content, and has not been modified in over 15 days. If the article had more than one sentance, this would not be a problem Rileychilds (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub unless someone demonstrates that this isn't a real place. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion.  The article does have content (including not only the brief but informative text but also an infobox and a source) and it is about a municipality in Austria, a type of article that is invariably kept.  Note that the German article about this community at de:Rohrbach an der Lafnitz has more information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A valid stub article waiting to be expanded. Populated places are usually considered inherently notable and this one demonstrably exists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As stated in Notability (geographic features), "legally recognized, populated places" are inherently notable. The official website of this settlement is in the infobox. The fact the article is a tiny stub is unimportant as regards notability. It (and all too many others) should be expanded, not discussed as a deletion candidate. Note also the many interwikis, and the wealth of material available for expansion at de:Rohrbach an der Lafnitz. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously and a WP:TROUT to the nom for failure to understand our policies or to read and adhere to WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2013 (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.