Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanoro


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 17:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Romanoro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

harrassment, bad community feedback  Sweet corn  (msg) 22:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of -related deletion discussions. <--  Sweet corn  (msg) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)>

 Redirect  (changed vote, see below) This is a unique circumstance where the population of the given area is extremely small, and as a result of the article, one of its residents is being harrassed (although there is no way to confirm this that I know of.) In gauging the reasonableness of this request, it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where information the editor added as a resident of the area ended up being too personal, and as a result of this, harrassment ensued. In meeting the deletion criteria, I believe the personal nature of the information may violate WP:NPOV but as the topic is a geographical location meeting WP:N the stronger argument would be to have the article redirect to another, such as Frassinoro; Or, if it remains, to have it stripped down to the bare minimums, as are other articles describing geographical locations.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - per WP:NGEOG. The sources establish this is a real town. Having 740 residents is very modest, but not "extremely" small, I would think. This place is a unique enough location to have its own article. I'm not sure what the nominator means by "harrassment, bad community feedback", but they do not seem to understand deletion criteria. As for Spintendo's comment, personal harassment issues outside Wikipedia caused indirectly by the existence of content are not our concern, because we do not censor content, and there are no BLP violations. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The external links are the main source of concern here (one is active the other is not). Perusal of the one active link shows personal information inappropriate for use in the article, per: WP:LINKVIO. As I understand it, the person who took photographs displayed there has said that the person administering the linked-to website no longer has their permission to display them.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why that would warrant deleting or redirecting the entire article. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NGEO, agree with, this is a real location, see the gmap here. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, also afd is not cleanup, just be bold and edit out non-encyclopedic content, i just did with some ie. the external links 1 not working and the other to a personal website so wiki-inappropriate (ditto the history), am leaving the rest for more experienced editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, also, also ("c'mon coola!, yes i know, i promise this will the last, it better be, grumble grumble."), i am concerned about this locality/village/hamlet(?) being referred to as "extremely small" or even "very modest" (btw i have also removed from the lead the apparent summer pop. of 740 as it was not backed by the dead link ref.), pop. size is generally (for legally recognised places) irrelevant. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep changing my vote to Keep, as the article is now in a much more agreeable state than before. Thank you to everyone for your input.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:SK NPASR Neither "harassment" nor "bad community feedback" are appropriate arguments in this forum.  Not sure what to suggest to the nominator, but a possible place to start would be to discuss this with the former administrator who started a discussion on your talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a reasonable article, at least now after edits during this AFD.  Note the infobox states population of 54, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2017 (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.