Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Göteröd

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 delete. Sr 13 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Göteröd[edit]

Contested PROD. While most inhabited places are notable, this community of 30 summer houses just fails WP:N. See also this essay.We have no other information on it than given in the article (which is little); Google knows it only via Wiki mirrors. Unclear even whether it's in fact a separate place or just 30 houses within a larger settlement. Not even worth merging to Tanum Municipality.

This article was created on a large number of Wikipedias recently, and apparently repeatedly. See the deletion log of Italian and French Wikipedia, just as an example. Therefore, my recommendation is: Delete, and possibly even salt the earth. --B. Wolterding 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am uncertain from the article whether it is a town, or whether it is a residential area. If its a town, then it certainly is a keep. DGG (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Appears to be a development/neighborhood within a larger community. I agree with DGG, if this is indeed a seperate settlement it should be kept, but for now all signs point in other directions. Will alter my suggestion if new info comes to light. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something smaller than a village, just a few summertime residences used by people living in urban areas (sommarstugeområde in Swedish). Also note the contributor of the article claims to be born in 1996 and most likely is the producer of all the articles on other Wikipedias. Personally, I think we could think of this as a multi-wiki, good faith test by one of our youngest contributors. / Mats Halldin (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete, a place where people don't and have never lived, only vacated, doesn't fall under the good "every place is notable" policy. Punkmorten 00:40, 27 July 2007 (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.