Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Red River Township, Minnesota

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

South Red River Township, Minnesota
Vanity page, only 23 inhabitants, excessively silly. We should delete the page. Yamla June 29, 2005 19:15 (UTC)
 * I clearly was mistaken in nominating this for deletion. Can I withdraw my nomination?  --Yamla June 30, 2005 18:38 (UTC)


 * Keep. Small towns are still notable.  Unfortunately, this page seems to have been created by the wikipedia citybot and never updated.  Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was decided a while back to keep these generated articles. Many have been expanded with interesting additions, but some like this haven't... but if anyone ever has need of info on South Red River Township, or someone from there becomes famous, hey, Wikipedia is ready. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:17 (UTC)
 * Keep Small yes, but not silly. There are far more useless articles floating around that we keep for good reason.  Gblaz June 29, 2005 20:22 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, per WP policy on municipalities. Currently a 'bot stub, 8 households, 23 people, and no indication of any special notability, but real municipalities with governments get kept.  Barno 29 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Rambot articles have been hashed over before. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)
 * Keep as per precedent. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)
 * Keep These city articles may oneday fulfill a purpose. They may be usefull to researchers and geographers. This is all coming off the top of my head lol. Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 21:25 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a side note, I wish the city bot had flagged all of these as stubs.  Falcon June 29, 2005 22:02 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Votes for deletion/Precedents. Granted, a town of population 23 is not as interesting as a town of population 0 or town of population 1, but if it is a census designated place, and it is, then I strongly support its inclusion. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
 * Keep all real places with communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 30 June 2005 01:45 (UTC)
 * Keep all real townships. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 09:38 (UTC)
 * Keep as per precendent. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:25 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.