Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarset


 * 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 a non-admin keep per WP:SNOWBALL as automatic notability has been established. SorryGuy Talk  23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tarset

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No links. Nothing to signify importance. Metal Head (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Doesn't a parish count as a geographic location for purposes of automatic notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Towns/villages/settlements are inherently notable regardless of size. "No links" is not a reason to delete an article but simply to add links (as I just did with Google Maps  and some rail history ). --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot think of a rason to delete this article. As Oakshade said this is a geographic feature and should not be deletedregardless of size. --Tainter (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Theres a fair bit of information on a google search for Tarset+Northumberland Willy turner (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no need to even think about whether villages are inherently notable. There are loads of sources to establish notability at Google books as well as the Google web search results found by Willy Turner. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 24 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.