Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astley Cross

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astley Cross

Article consists of a single sentence which fails to assert notability, since creation in August 2007 OrangeDog (talk • edits) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; its a village, and general consensus says they are inherently notable. Stub status is not a standalone reason for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be provided about this village. Gnaa, Nigeria was supposedly a village too, and look where that got us. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaa was an obvious hoax related to the notorious GNAA trolls. This population center is not a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- a quick Google search will verify this place exists. Most of these, however, are things like "things to do in Astley Cross" and "Businesses in Astley Cross", so not the sort of thing you can build an article around, and I just don't buy the concept that things are inherently notable. It leads to a lot of tiny, unexpandable microstubs that clutter up Wikipedia and serve no useful purpose. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All genuine villages are notable. If there are busineses there , and events, aand roads, and presumably some school sand churches, there will be content for an article, and all of it will be in the local newspapers. This should have been expanded, not brought here. Did anyone try? DGG (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub, but that is never reason for deletion on its own. The place exists and deserves to have a page. It should be expanded, but that is a seperate matter. Alberon (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An opportunity to improve not remove. Pedro : Chat 11:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may be a stub, but that's not a good reason for deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why must every populated settlement be notable? Unless any entities associated with the settlement are notable in their own right, all an article can be is a local directory or a travel guide, both things which Wikipedia is not. Just because something appears in a local paper does not make it notable. The fact that this article is a stub has nothing to do with why I nominated, it was because I cannot see any basis for claiming that the village is notable. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Places are considered notable because there is generally held to be an automatic interest in any place of more than a certain size/population due to the number of people that are likely to want information about it. Places are notable because they almost universally appear in multiple reliable sources (i.e., maps) and therefore satisfy the letter WP:N. Places are notable because there's no reason for them not to be, because there is a finite number of them, which is small enough that we can cope with handling all of them, and doesn't grow particularly quickly. WP:NOTPAPER applies. JulesH (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being one sentence is not a valid reason for deletion. That it's a population center is an assertion of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, inherent notability is nonsense but very few places aren't the subject of some reasonable commentary. Worst case, this can be upmerged to an administrative area or region. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete has been provided - see WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Areley Kings or possibly Stourport-on-Severn, as Astley Cross appears to be only a small area (formerly a hamlet, now a residential area) with no official status as a village or parish, and not much coverage in reliable sources. —Snigbrook 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all locations are notable pretty much. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects to the nom, the article does indeed assert notability: "Astley Cross is a village in Worcestershire, England, located on the outskirts of Stourport-on-Severn." It could be tagged for axpansion and sopurcing, but certainly not deletion. And it must be noted that though this article may never be more than a stub, that's perfectly okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 3 March 2009 (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.