Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girofle

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 all. Related discussion and closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Coeur Saignant and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girofle

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More nominations

Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not communities or villages. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, guys. I am from Réunion. I was born there. I lived there until I was 17. Then came back in 2004. Stayed there until 2007. I am Reunionese. I speak the local creole. I love that place. And I am an admin on the French Wikipedia. I have created the French Mascarene Portal. I have written three good articles and one featured article about my island. All in all, I have initiated about 1000 pages about Réunion there. Today I started eight. Thus, I would be very pleased if there was many articles about it in the English Wikipedia. I would love to see a complete portal dedicated to it here. Yet, I have to maintain that all this stuff listed up there should be deleted as soon as possible. The source AlbertHerring said he used to create these pages is erroneous. Biruitorul told him. I told him, and he eventually said that he would back up a deletion request. What more is required to make you understand that we are talking about tiny groups of houses with no more than a few families − if only they do exist? All the pages that show up on Google are from automated databases set to provide a commercial link related to any square meter on Earth. Nobody with local knowledge wrote them. They cannot be trusted, indeed. There are many mistakes inside. And inventions. Inventions that it would be insane to rely on, unless you are unwillingly wirting Encarta from the antipods. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. When it comes to place names in French départements (including overseas), the Petit Larousse is the ultimate reference. None of the places mentioned above are listed in it. I have verified that Thierry Caro is indeed an administrator on the French Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per above. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Everyone before you said delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As per my comments in the above discussion about Reunion communes. Corvus cornix_talk 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in order to be consistent with my comments also in the other Reunion communities mass AFD. However I'm adding "weak" to this as there is no equivalent comment yet from a user such as Serviam stating that these places have been confirmed via Encarta. If these places are fictional, then I will be happy to change my vote. Otherwise my opinion on these AFDs remains the same as that of the other AFD set. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IGN

As I understood that you would be interested in places very small even though there is not much or nothing to be said about them, I made an in-depth check of the names listed above at the back of my IGN maps. It appears that they all come from there but that many of them are not correctly copied. It also appears that the localisation given in other databases is not always accurate. We have:

Girofle : 20°56′44″S 55°30′11″E / 20.94556°S 55.50306°E / -20.94556; 55.50306 − Toponym for a natural zone. 1 building around.
Giroflé : 21°15′01″S 55°26′04″E / 21.25028°S 55.43444°E / -21.25028; 55.43444 − Toponym for an agricultural zone. About 50 or 100 buildings around.
Gol les Hauts : 21°15′01″S 55°26′04″E / 21.25028°S 55.43444°E / -21.25028; 55.43444 − Toponym for a populated place of about 250 buildings inside.
Halte-Là : 20°57′52″S 55°19′53″E / 20.96444°S 55.33139°E / -20.96444; 55.33139 − Toponym for a populated place of about 150 buildings inside.
Etc.

You should have a look at Géoportail for these first-hand maps. If you keep in mind that the names might not be accurate, maybe will you find the others. From my point of view, none is notable, indeed. I mean: what will the article say if even the locals don't know anything? Can't we simply use redirects to Category:Communes of Réunion? Whatever, I hope I helped you. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would like to say that Réunion should be renamed to La Réunion. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE;^[1] by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:05, 4 July 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.