Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/unheard-before US towns

To add to this deletion debate, click here


 * I vote to delete all small U.S. towns on the basis that they destroy the functionality of the Random link. 666 20:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You'll have to list every single one you want deleted, but I don't think you want to do that. Keep all.RickK | Talk 20:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Someone from one of these "unheard of" towns could come along and add some useful and intresting information about their town. Besides, what constitutes as "small"? 1,000? 10,000? 50,000? Rainier Schmidt 20:48, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * This request is inmpossible because, as Rainier says, you haven't specified what you mean by "small". If you said "all towns with less than 10 people" or "all towns with less than 100 people" or "all towns with less than 10,000 people" or whatever, then that would be a debatable suggestion (although I'd personally vote against it). Saul Taylor 22:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - random page works fine for me -- Cyrius | Talk 22:16, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first random page I just got was a small US town. r3m0t 20:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The first random page I got was a small British town! :) User:Gaurav
 * Keep. -- Taku 05:30, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Angela. 10:50, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plainly the solution is to lobby for a preference to exclude bot-created pages from random links. Lupin 22:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all, wikipedia is not paper, and if you're that dissatisfied with what comes up when you press the 'random' button then press it again! -- Graham :) | Talk 20:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't delete useful information. Add to it if you like, but don't delete. Dpbsmith 20:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I agree that these million-and-one tiny towns are INCREDIBLY BLOODY ANNOYING and ruin the "Random page" link, there is a mountain of info in there and it would be silly to get rid of it. Stormie 05:48, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say that I get other stubs just as often as I get towns. Want to delete those too? Keep. Meelar 05:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was (and kinda still am) bothered by the high chance of a random page being some small town, but I don't think deletion is the answer. Either exclude them from the random page function, or, more likely, we just need to create enuf other valid articles that they show up less often. Niteowlneils 16:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cribnotes 23:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia is not an almanach and the vast majority of those places are of no interest to anybody except the locals, a possible solution would be to flag those pages using some token that excludes them from the "random page" choice. Wikipedia is run on computers, let's use computing-based solutions! David.Monniaux 15:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The obvious solution to this is to write more articles on other topics. Davodd 22:19, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My first Wikipedia edit was on my relatively insignificant hometown, and from there I got hooked; I have a feeling I'm not the only one. -- Seth Ilys 23:29, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of these places have a verifiable history rivalling many more populous places and despite their small size are legitimate encyclopedia topics.    Print encyclopedias have had, traditionally, articles on many small towns, including not only demographics but a rough history and precis of any present-day issues.  Articles on small towns, even those thought to be only of "local" interest, may be of interest to travellers or people researching a larger area such as a county or region.  The information about such places is usually verifiable and does not date quickly, making these practical articles to have and to maintain.  UninvitedCompany 21:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The forthcoming Wikipedia category scheme will eventually fix any problems with gazetteer-type articles. -- The Anome 01:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)