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.
A small village with no notability. The only source used is a census report from 2011. This certainly fails GNG. Created by a user who is just creating articles for the hell of it and is not improving any of them. He is currently a subject of an ongoing
ANI discussion. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what you mean. The guideline says that populated, legally recognised places are presumed notable. The census link says that this is a populated (by over 2000 people) legally recognised place. How does it not fit? I must add that I have never seen anyone with a user name that implies that they are here on a mission last for long. If you want to fly under the radar a bit more then I advise you to change it, but then I have also never seen editors with such user names take such good advice.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't fit because there is only one census report. A single source isn't enough. It would be notable if not only with multiple census reports, but news articles or something that can establish notability. This village so far isn't under the guideline. And there's no need to invoke any comment about my user name. Stick to the topic at hand. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - per User:Phil Bridger and WP:GEOLAND. One census report IS enough for populated places, although obvsly more sources would be better.
Ingratis (
talk)
23:31, 3 July 2021 (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.
A small village with no notability. The only source used is a census report from 2011. This certainly fails GNG. Created by a user who is just creating articles for the hell of it and is not improving any of them. He is currently a subject of an ongoing
ANI discussion. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what you mean. The guideline says that populated, legally recognised places are presumed notable. The census link says that this is a populated (by over 2000 people) legally recognised place. How does it not fit? I must add that I have never seen anyone with a user name that implies that they are here on a mission last for long. If you want to fly under the radar a bit more then I advise you to change it, but then I have also never seen editors with such user names take such good advice.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It doesn't fit because there is only one census report. A single source isn't enough. It would be notable if not only with multiple census reports, but news articles or something that can establish notability. This village so far isn't under the guideline. And there's no need to invoke any comment about my user name. Stick to the topic at hand. --
WikiCleanerMan (
talk)
18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - per User:Phil Bridger and WP:GEOLAND. One census report IS enough for populated places, although obvsly more sources would be better.
Ingratis (
talk)
23:31, 3 July 2021 (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.