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.
Keep. There is a pretty strong view that all places are kept and I think that has some merit. "All knowledge" should contain all places. --
Bduke (
talk)
11:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no bright line boundary, but towns tend to be notable for their histories and their inhabitants. A quick Google search shows that important science was conducted in Mound in the first half of the 20th century, especially USDA mosquito control studies in the 1910s and 1920s. This village has something to write about. Even the place name has a story.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll change my vote if someone puts that in the article. By the way WP:OUTCOMES says " . . towns and villages are acceptable regardless of size", not notable. My interpretation of that would be a village is not AUTOMATICALLY notable.
Spinningspark (
talk)
19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Ridiculous article. Ironically, many of the same people who would argue that Madison Parish High School is non-notable... are those who will argue that a place in Madison Parish where the school bus happens to stop is "inherently notable". I have yet to see a policy that says that every frikcin' name on the map is entitled to its own article.
Mandsford (
talk)
12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Is that a serious "keep" or are you being sarcastic? For those who can't do arithmetic, 33.3% implies the number of households is divisible by three. For those that still don't get it; 4 does not divide by 3
[1].
Spinningspark (
talk)
15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Where is this 'light-year long precedent' that all places in the US census are notable actually documented in Wiki policy? Is there a discussion somewhere where a consensus was reached that you can point to? Would you accept inclusion of a village of 12 in Indonesia? There are an awful lot of small villages in Indonesia.
Spinningspark (
talk)
15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep A bot created articles for all US census locations, and they have been kept in AFDs so far as I know. Hamlets and villages in other countries have been kept on the basais of short entries in the 1911 Britannica or other proof of existence. These census entries or other governmental or historical or scholarly sources satisfy the Wikipedia requirement for
verifiability. The common outcomes of countless AFDs have been that verifiable villages have been kept. Because of that implicit practice, a listing of multiple sources with substantial coverage may not be required as is normally the case to satisfy
notability requirements, although that question could be argued at the talk page of
WP:N. A comparable village in Indonesia which is listed as a census unit by that country's government should likewise be kept. Flooding at Mound, LA is discussed at
[3] . The origin of the place name is discussed at
[4]. There were important antimalarial experiments there in 1920-1930
[5][6][7][8]. It has been a location in fiction
[9]. The "Moneymaker" variety of pecan originated there
[10]. Indian mounds there have been studied
[11]. In summary, the stub article can be improved and expanded by adding reliable sources which discuss at least its historic river bank location, and the malaria research there.
Edison (
talk)
04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep a census-designated place. Beyond that, I'm inclined to think, contra Mandsford's comment, that every frickin' name on the map should have its own article; I wouldn't phrase it in terms of entitlement, but of service to our readers.
JamesMLanetc10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The precedent for keeping census-designated places seems strong. I join with others in recommending that new material noted in the AfD discussion should be added to the article. The present contents of the article are not very interesting.
EdJohnston (
talk)
14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Keep. There is a pretty strong view that all places are kept and I think that has some merit. "All knowledge" should contain all places. --
Bduke (
talk)
11:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no bright line boundary, but towns tend to be notable for their histories and their inhabitants. A quick Google search shows that important science was conducted in Mound in the first half of the 20th century, especially USDA mosquito control studies in the 1910s and 1920s. This village has something to write about. Even the place name has a story.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll change my vote if someone puts that in the article. By the way WP:OUTCOMES says " . . towns and villages are acceptable regardless of size", not notable. My interpretation of that would be a village is not AUTOMATICALLY notable.
Spinningspark (
talk)
19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Ridiculous article. Ironically, many of the same people who would argue that Madison Parish High School is non-notable... are those who will argue that a place in Madison Parish where the school bus happens to stop is "inherently notable". I have yet to see a policy that says that every frikcin' name on the map is entitled to its own article.
Mandsford (
talk)
12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Is that a serious "keep" or are you being sarcastic? For those who can't do arithmetic, 33.3% implies the number of households is divisible by three. For those that still don't get it; 4 does not divide by 3
[1].
Spinningspark (
talk)
15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Where is this 'light-year long precedent' that all places in the US census are notable actually documented in Wiki policy? Is there a discussion somewhere where a consensus was reached that you can point to? Would you accept inclusion of a village of 12 in Indonesia? There are an awful lot of small villages in Indonesia.
Spinningspark (
talk)
15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep A bot created articles for all US census locations, and they have been kept in AFDs so far as I know. Hamlets and villages in other countries have been kept on the basais of short entries in the 1911 Britannica or other proof of existence. These census entries or other governmental or historical or scholarly sources satisfy the Wikipedia requirement for
verifiability. The common outcomes of countless AFDs have been that verifiable villages have been kept. Because of that implicit practice, a listing of multiple sources with substantial coverage may not be required as is normally the case to satisfy
notability requirements, although that question could be argued at the talk page of
WP:N. A comparable village in Indonesia which is listed as a census unit by that country's government should likewise be kept. Flooding at Mound, LA is discussed at
[3] . The origin of the place name is discussed at
[4]. There were important antimalarial experiments there in 1920-1930
[5][6][7][8]. It has been a location in fiction
[9]. The "Moneymaker" variety of pecan originated there
[10]. Indian mounds there have been studied
[11]. In summary, the stub article can be improved and expanded by adding reliable sources which discuss at least its historic river bank location, and the malaria research there.
Edison (
talk)
04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep a census-designated place. Beyond that, I'm inclined to think, contra Mandsford's comment, that every frickin' name on the map should have its own article; I wouldn't phrase it in terms of entitlement, but of service to our readers.
JamesMLanetc10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. The precedent for keeping census-designated places seems strong. I join with others in recommending that new material noted in the AfD discussion should be added to the article. The present contents of the article are not very interesting.
EdJohnston (
talk)
14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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.