Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherwood, Tennessee


 * 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. It is well referenced at this point. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sherwood, Tennessee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is another unicorporated community. There is no significance attached to this place, and there is no independent reliable sourcing that might show that this area stands out in some way from the thousands of other would-be villages across the planet. They do have a post office, but that does not confer notability in any way. Wikipedia is not a list of places that have a post office. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a verified settlement, which makes it notable by long-standing AfD precedent. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps that "precident" should be changed. This "community" consists of something like seven households. Perhaps if somebody could explain why this "precident" exists, it may make more sense to me, and I will withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The precedent is only a guide to what commonly happens. It isn't unassailable.  Notability is not a blanket.  Nor is it a good rationale.  But a rationale that pointed to policy would say that per the Five Pillars Wikipedia does incorporate elements of a gazetteer, as indeed do other encyclopaedias.  That a place is small is not a reason for not including it in the encyclopaedia.  Nor is the assertion that a place has no significance.  Not only is that a subjective judgement, that notability is not, but the idea of "unimportant" things not belonging in an encyclopaedia, when it is exactly that sort of I've-not-heard-of-it thing that readers come to encyclopaedias to look up, was soundly rejected by Jimbo's "no" in 2004.  That a place is undocumented is a reason for deletion, per deletion policy.  The simple fact, that leads to the overextended blanket assertions, is that many named populated places, by their very natures, are documented.  Local history books cover them.  Governments provide census records.  Geographers, geologists, and explorers do reports.  Newspapers publish articles.  None of that is true of the plot of grassland next to my house, but it generally is true for named populated localities.  Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is now up to ten references, plus there are some more articles from the 2000s about a proposal for a new mine, and a few sources cited in the external link that I don't have access to. There's a reason for the precedent; the sources supporting these communities' notability always seem to come up, even if they're not easy to find at first. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does appear to be a community, which are always kept no matter what country they're in and whether they're a city, town, village or hamlet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources establish that this is a distinct and notable community. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, with congratulations on the development of a nice (and nicely sourced) little article about a community I never heard of before today. Sources fully establish its notability. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it seems to be well referenced now. Good job, it looks like a real article now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 19 December 2012 (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.