Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalegarden

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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalegarden[edit]

It would appear to have no notability at all whatsoever having a population of slightly more than one thousand Johnzw (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep All communities are notable by default. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a neighborhood, no official statistics. My bad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus that populated areas are generally notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not for given reason. The problem is that it doesn't appear in the given reference. Would appear to be a neighborhood of also AfD'd Dale, but without official statistics. 1000 by the way is not small. (And is not given as the population of this place.) Potatoswatter (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, Potatoswatter; I hadn't noticed that [possibly because I don't speak norwegian]. I endorse this idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzw (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A village is not a neighborhood (unless Norwegian uses the same word for both), and all villages are notable. A Google search for Dalegarden limited to sites with the .no top level domain, http://www.google.com/search?q=Dalegarden+site%3Ano , generates lots of hits, which suggests that Dalegarden has an identity distinct from Dale. And Google Maps shows it: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Dalegarden&sll=61.143235,9.09668&sspn=7.179311,29.882813&ie=UTF8&ll=60.581234,5.799108&spn=0.007125,0.029182&z=15&iwloc=addr --Eastmain (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence establishes notability here. Google Maps certainly shows Dalegarden (possibly up to a few dozen families in South Dale) and Google returns 85 pages for "Dalegarden Vaksdal site:no". (The initial estimate is higher, and not all 85 pages are relevant.) So although notability is established, we will have a serious problem finding a Norwegian editor interested in writing up the unincorporated southern third of a small town with no statistics. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is possible though. Punkmorten (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some data points which argue against notability: There is no article for Dalegarden in the Bokmal or Nynorsk Wikipedias. A search for Dalegarden at Statens Kartverk, the government mapping agency, yields nothing. I still think all villages are notable, though. --Eastmain (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Norwegian Wikipedias, that doesn't weigh much because these Wikipedias are very poor. They can't be expected to have articles. Punkmorten (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For contrast, consider querying Google Maps for Lick, California, a small-yet-named neighborhood in a larger settlement. Then try finding other records of it. (Hint: Lick Observatory is 22 miles away.) Then, see Foosland, Illinois, which is smaller than Dalegarden or Lick, yet is a distinct place. (Foosland recently defeated a referendum to strip their incorporation.) I suspect that Dalegarden is a common name, giving a "halo effect" similar to Lick. Unfortunately, we have no information on the status or boundaries of Dalegarden or Lick, so the best we can do is probably redirect. As a final example, I live in Historic Urbana, part of Urbana, Illinois. This tidbit is meaningless aside from some zoning regulations, although it is a precisely defined place with precise (albeit local) statistics. The notable things about Historic Urbana are well covered in the article on the City of Urbana. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As you may not know: While it may be part of an urban area, that doesn't make it a neighborhood of said area. For instance, the urban area Oslo covers many surrounding municipalities in its entirety, still, the municipalities in question are undoubtedly distinct entities. The same thing applies here, the places have enough geographical distance to constitute distinct entities. A map shows you the difference between the two places. Punkmorten (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean it's a suburb. The arguments against are:

It doesn't have its own statistics, which we can access
Its name is clearly derived from that of the larger community, suggesting a mere division
The scale in distance and population is much less than Oslo. There may be no commerce at all in Dalegarden. We just don't know. Dale is not an urban area, either.

- In any case, you are most likely totally wrong in calling it a "municipality". Potatoswatter (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I never called Dalegarden a municipality, nor a suburb. Suburb doesn't fit, it's a small village with its own history. I don't understand what "a mere division" is supposed to mean. Of course Dale is an urban area, please read the existing source if commenting on an article. Punkmorten (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real, verifiable locations are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, if this was an American location, we simply would not see it listed here.--Berig (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, real place. Corvus cornix_talk 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as as an inhabited separately named settlement. I was interested to see that the fact that its name seems to be derived from that of another place is being used as an argument to delete. What implications does that have for New York? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 26 April 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.