Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Queen City, Iowa

Request for closing admin
Senior and vastly experienced editors in this deletion discussion have referred to previous consensus that 1) all verifiable human habitations are notable, and 2) notability doesn't expire. I'm not sure I agree 100% with either assertion (only 99 44/100%). Let's say we were talking about the discovery of 200 Native American gravesites on the same lands, a settlement for only 30 years, but 1500 instead of 150 years ago, as an example. I suspect an unsourced article on such settlement might need to survive a deletion process just like this one.

My personal nitpicking aside, I'd like the closing administrator to include in this closing statement a reference to the much-discussed but never-cited previous consensus based on the first of these assertions. If, as User:DGG has related, "All villages, towns and other human settlements that have ever been inhabited are notable", then I'd expect to find some sort of notability guideline on the subject (other than in "likely outcomes"). If no guideline has been approved, I'm hoping closing admin might make a statement moving the pedia closer to such a logical guideline. I happen to agree with David that this is a "good workable rule" for many of the reasons he put forth. Even if I disagreed, I'd like to think I'd want some clarification on this issue, likely to recur. BusterD (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That towns are automatically notable is already noted at WP:OUTCOMES, just FYI, though this isn't technically a policy or guideline.  The "that ever existed" part is already explicitly part of policy at the link you cited.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have linked outcomes when I wrote "likely outcomes", but I was aware of the contents of both pages. It was my mistake not to make this clear. I've read through the pages linked from AfD, though I'll not claim myself an expert or as greatly experienced as many contributors to this discussion. Perhaps the wording at outcomes should be made even more explicit. Perhaps a geography notability guide needs construction. I'm just not satisfied sufficient guides exist at WP:NOTE. Several editors (including nominator) point this out. Having unclear process guides represents a subtle and entirely unintentional biting of less experienced editors. IMHO. BusterD (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, if this consensus is so all-fired "automatically", why isn't it at least in the notability guides? BusterD (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. Perhaps, as you suggest, a geography notability guide could be constructed - it seems someone made a start here, though I don't know how whether or to what degree some of its points actually follow the established consensus. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)