- 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 keep. Procedural close. This is a very confusing AFD. For most of this bundled nomination, the nominator is proposing that section headings in a primary article be deleted from that article but not the article itself. (?) These section headings are actually redirects that point to other articles which have not been tagged as being part of this deletion discussion. Depending on your goal, either the redirects need to be nominated at WP:RFD or the target pages they point to need to be nominated and tagged individually in a separate AFD nomination and the page creators notified. But nominating section headings in one article that are linked to redirects that are linked to other articles will not lead to a deletion of all of those targeted articles. If, instead, you wish to delete these sections of the article, that should be done through normal editing and not AFD.
Feel free to offer another bundled nomination of the articles you intended to nominate for deletion, you just must follow the guidelines for AFD article tagging and content creator notification. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vingtaine de Longueville ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think we should delete all the links in these sub-sections in the Vingtaine article. (Not the articles I listed, but the sub section in the vingtaine article)
- Vingtaine#Grouville
- Vingtaine#Saint Brélade
- Vingtaine#St Clement
- Vingtaine#St Helier
- Vingtaine#St John
- Vingtaine#St Lawrence
- Vingtaine#St Mary
- Vingtaine#St Martin
- St Peter, Jersey
- Trinity, Jersey
Vingtaine, all the articles listed in this article are unnotable. Although they are real places, there isn't much info about them and no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jersey and Islands. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. All the articles that are linked on the page should get deleted because they have the same source which is unreliable and they all have the same order. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: per
WP:GEOLAND, "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". All vingtaines in Jersey are legally recognised, populated places. While there may be insufficient sources in the article(s) it doesn't mean sources don't exist, particularly offline such as in books. I suggest it would be better to tag articles with perceived unreliable sources with {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Primary sources}} or {{Better source needed}}
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
10:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are real places but we are talking about the article. The article is unsourced and seems to be like someone wrote 3 seconds of the info and left it abandoned.
`~HelpingWorld~`
(👽🛸)
01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- @ HelpingWorld: Please read WP:TOOSHORT. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 07:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are real places but we are talking about the article. The article is unsourced and seems to be like someone wrote 3 seconds of the info and left it abandoned.
`~HelpingWorld~`
(👽🛸)
01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect all to
Vingtaine. Without any to say beyond existence, there shouldn't be separate articles. Further content could be covered in the main page per NOPAGE as well.
Reywas92
Talk
23:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not all of the articles which the nominator proposes should be deleted are very short stubs, for example
Vingtaine de la Ville. I would support redirecting or merging most, rather than all of the vigntaine articles, not to the
vingtaine page but to each vingtaine's respective parish, and tagging them as '
R with possibilities'.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello,
Curb Safe Charmer, could you be specific on the outcome you'd like to see here? This discussion has been relisted already and can be closed at any time. I know you have opinions about this nomination but you haven't spelled out exactly what you'd like to see Kept, Redirected or Merged. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've got off the fence and !voted below. I would not lose any sleep if these were to be redirected or merged, but as there are 41 articles in question, it would take me some time to review each and consider whether there is enough to merge, or whether a redirect with possibilities would be better. I don't have time to do that right now, I am sure though, that the nomination is misconceived and none should be deleted. The nomination is confusing - I think the nominator is saying they don't think any articles should be deleted, just the links to them at vingtaine, in which case AfD is not the right venue. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello,
Curb Safe Charmer, could you be specific on the outcome you'd like to see here? This discussion has been relisted already and can be closed at any time. I know you have opinions about this nomination but you haven't spelled out exactly what you'd like to see Kept, Redirected or Merged. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not all of the articles which the nominator proposes should be deleted are very short stubs, for example
Vingtaine de la Ville. I would support redirecting or merging most, rather than all of the vigntaine articles, not to the
vingtaine page but to each vingtaine's respective parish, and tagging them as '
R with possibilities'.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - the nom is incorrect that these are not notable, per WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't worry me that most are short, as contrary to the nom's claim that there are 'no reliable sources', offline sources exist and so there's scope to expand them. Some of them are unsourced or poorly sourced and should be tagged as such. On a technicality, if this AfD is proposing to delete multiple articles, WP:BUNDLE has not been followed and so contributors to and watchers of the articles concerned haven't been given the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (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.
- 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 keep. Procedural close. This is a very confusing AFD. For most of this bundled nomination, the nominator is proposing that section headings in a primary article be deleted from that article but not the article itself. (?) These section headings are actually redirects that point to other articles which have not been tagged as being part of this deletion discussion. Depending on your goal, either the redirects need to be nominated at WP:RFD or the target pages they point to need to be nominated and tagged individually in a separate AFD nomination and the page creators notified. But nominating section headings in one article that are linked to redirects that are linked to other articles will not lead to a deletion of all of those targeted articles. If, instead, you wish to delete these sections of the article, that should be done through normal editing and not AFD.
Feel free to offer another bundled nomination of the articles you intended to nominate for deletion, you just must follow the guidelines for AFD article tagging and content creator notification. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vingtaine de Longueville ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think we should delete all the links in these sub-sections in the Vingtaine article. (Not the articles I listed, but the sub section in the vingtaine article)
- Vingtaine#Grouville
- Vingtaine#Saint Brélade
- Vingtaine#St Clement
- Vingtaine#St Helier
- Vingtaine#St John
- Vingtaine#St Lawrence
- Vingtaine#St Mary
- Vingtaine#St Martin
- St Peter, Jersey
- Trinity, Jersey
Vingtaine, all the articles listed in this article are unnotable. Although they are real places, there isn't much info about them and no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jersey and Islands. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. All the articles that are linked on the page should get deleted because they have the same source which is unreliable and they all have the same order. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: per
WP:GEOLAND, "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". All vingtaines in Jersey are legally recognised, populated places. While there may be insufficient sources in the article(s) it doesn't mean sources don't exist, particularly offline such as in books. I suggest it would be better to tag articles with perceived unreliable sources with {{Unreliable sources}}, {{Primary sources}} or {{Better source needed}}
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
10:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are real places but we are talking about the article. The article is unsourced and seems to be like someone wrote 3 seconds of the info and left it abandoned.
`~HelpingWorld~`
(👽🛸)
01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- @ HelpingWorld: Please read WP:TOOSHORT. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 07:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they are real places but we are talking about the article. The article is unsourced and seems to be like someone wrote 3 seconds of the info and left it abandoned.
`~HelpingWorld~`
(👽🛸)
01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect all to
Vingtaine. Without any to say beyond existence, there shouldn't be separate articles. Further content could be covered in the main page per NOPAGE as well.
Reywas92
Talk
23:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not all of the articles which the nominator proposes should be deleted are very short stubs, for example
Vingtaine de la Ville. I would support redirecting or merging most, rather than all of the vigntaine articles, not to the
vingtaine page but to each vingtaine's respective parish, and tagging them as '
R with possibilities'.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello,
Curb Safe Charmer, could you be specific on the outcome you'd like to see here? This discussion has been relisted already and can be closed at any time. I know you have opinions about this nomination but you haven't spelled out exactly what you'd like to see Kept, Redirected or Merged. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've got off the fence and !voted below. I would not lose any sleep if these were to be redirected or merged, but as there are 41 articles in question, it would take me some time to review each and consider whether there is enough to merge, or whether a redirect with possibilities would be better. I don't have time to do that right now, I am sure though, that the nomination is misconceived and none should be deleted. The nomination is confusing - I think the nominator is saying they don't think any articles should be deleted, just the links to them at vingtaine, in which case AfD is not the right venue. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello,
Curb Safe Charmer, could you be specific on the outcome you'd like to see here? This discussion has been relisted already and can be closed at any time. I know you have opinions about this nomination but you haven't spelled out exactly what you'd like to see Kept, Redirected or Merged. Thanks.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not all of the articles which the nominator proposes should be deleted are very short stubs, for example
Vingtaine de la Ville. I would support redirecting or merging most, rather than all of the vigntaine articles, not to the
vingtaine page but to each vingtaine's respective parish, and tagging them as '
R with possibilities'.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - the nom is incorrect that these are not notable, per WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't worry me that most are short, as contrary to the nom's claim that there are 'no reliable sources', offline sources exist and so there's scope to expand them. Some of them are unsourced or poorly sourced and should be tagged as such. On a technicality, if this AfD is proposing to delete multiple articles, WP:BUNDLE has not been followed and so contributors to and watchers of the articles concerned haven't been given the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (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.