Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apoldu de Jos

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

Closed as SNOW keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apoldu de Jos

This article is only one sentence long. What really is the point of it? This and many of the other Communes at the bottom of the page also only have one sentence. I personally do not see how these articles are really necessary at all. Therefore, I believe this one, and probably the rest of the small Commune articles, should be deleted. T24G 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. I don't see why this town of over 1,500 would be an exception. The nom has only given reasons for article expansion, not deletion. The article could simply read "Apoldu de Jos sucks" and I'd still vote "keep" (and obviously rewrite). The Romanian WP article is a good place to start to find more content.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we expand stubs, not delete them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real populated places are notable. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I'm not aware of an accepted written guideline, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places indicates what the editors above voted. Another common practice is to redirect village articles to the corresponding communes, but this is a commune. Pcap ping 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A commune. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep The potential for expansion is obvious from the version in the Romanian WEP. One doesn't even need a rough translation to see that. BTW, I am not aware that we now ever redirect village articles to a commune; if PCap can find any examples, I intend to boldly revert the redirects if there is information to do it with. the only populated areas we redirect to a larger unit are most neighborhoods, and other similar relatively ambiguous areas. Ther text of common reads "smaller suburbs are usually merged....except where they have their own government," which is essentially all the time except for neighborhoods. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you embark on such experiments, let me throw in a couple of issues: all the info on a village can easily fit into an article on a commune, and the redirects were mostly done with that in mind (where there was ever any info on the village worth preserving, it was preserved in the article on the commune). As I have explained at length whenever the Romanian wikipedians here expressed an opinion on the matter (and generating consensus in the process): the village is not an administrative subdivision of any kind, and, if anything, functions as an informal section of a commune, when the commune itself only hosts thousands of inhabitants at best. No matter how much one would expand the article on a village, the info would still not be too much not be featured nicely in the relevant commune article; the opposite will result in articles which either say the same thing or of which at least one is forced to remain a stub (the commune article, which in that scenario would only say "x commune has w, y, z villages"). All of the info would be segregated along impractical lines. That's why.
(The few villages that were turned into articles in the pasts were almost in all cases absolute rants with no sources, so there really isn't anything "lost" here.) Dahn (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are you then saying that the Romanian "village" is not an administrative unit, and does not have any governmental role? I remind you we are not bound by what other Wikipedias may choose to do -- the concept of notability is not the same in all Wikipedias. Nor can those working here on one country have a consensus that is at odds with the community more generally. "What can fit into other articles" is not a negative criterion here. Can you find some examples where AfD supported your view of this? DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is much potential for expansion (no, not by copying Romanian wikipedia) and this is inherently notable. Dahn (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (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.