Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czerlejewo

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. seicer | talk | contribs 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czerlejewo

Is a hamlet with a population of 30 notable? I'd like input, even if it's a speedy, so we have something to point to when the article creator comes calling. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess all hamlets are notable. Not sure though but it makes sense that all locations where families gather to live should make encyclopedic entries. Hús ö nd 03:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator asked if it's notable, and the answer is simple: yes. However, it's unsourced. Punkmorten (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability due to a lack of any reliable source showing it is or was an inhabited place. If this alleged site of 30 persons' residence deserves an encyclopedia article, then the block I live on is even more deserving, since it is verifiable, and more people live there. Anything we say about this hamlet can be said better about the geopolitical unit it is part of. Edison (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Earth has coordinates for this place at 51°44'19.87"N, 16°21'17.77"E. The block where you live isn't a separate designated location or settlement, most likely with no history at all. "Czerlejewo" renders more than 1000 hits on Google; if your block goes that far we might consider inclusion. :-) Hús ö nd 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would love to see all those hundreds of completely unreferenced American "unincorporated communities" of 30 people articles nominated one day for deletion. It would be kind of justice for all those African, Asian and Central European places nominated for deletion by Western editors. - Darwinek (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Villages are notable, per one million articles on Wikipedia :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per convincing comments by Husond, Darwinek and Piotrus. --Poeticbent talk 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per second comment by Husond. greg park avenue (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to answer the noms question, if there is any documentation for its real existence as an inhabited place, the answer is unequivocally yes, regardless of size. Darwinek, there are similar nom for UK and US places, the few people who don't like this kind of article are not culturally sensitive about where they are. Where the real bias problem is, is that we need more people willing and able to enter the African and Asian places. (and of course, that they preferably say a good deal more about them than this article does). DGG (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG, please assume good faith and do not disparage or engage in personal attacks against those whose views do not correspond with yours with regards to the notability and verifiability of the subject of an article. Edison (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG was assuming good faith, in fact he was defending you and those who agree with you against a user who did not assume good faith. He did not engage in personal attacks, either, nor did he encourage anyone to do so. Edward321 (talk)
Merge to Siedlnica. While I agree with almost everything that is said by those supporting retention of the article (especially Husond and DGG), all information about the hamlet could easily be moved into the article on the village. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it can be shown to be a real place. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (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.