Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howie Centre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Howie Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Howie Centre was prodded for failing to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. The proposed deletion was contested by an editor claiming settlements have presumed notability. I was unable to find a notability guideline confirming this, and therefore consider Howie Centre a candidate for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's General Notabiliy Guideline due to the absence of online or non-local sources establishing notability. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is this essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography), which claims to summarise consensus. Howie Centre appears on maps, has its own school and Fire Station, it's evidently more than one house and a tree. I've only ever seen articles about populated places deleted when there's no evidence of their existence. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NGEO says that legal recognition is sufficient for keeping and early closure. Here is some census data for the community census, which should be enough to establish legal recognition. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looks like a population center to me. The editor removing the prod is correct. Settlements are considered inherently notable.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since you all seem to be relying on WP:NGEO, I've marked it as a draft proposal. Please consider contributing to the draft and discussion there. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm going by long standing consensus, as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES as well as the common sense clause in WP:NOTABILITY. Suddenly changing the essay WP:NGEO as you just tried to do because you don't like the probable outcome of one afd is not going to change long standing consensus where there was no sign of consensus changing, including in this afd. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize the consensus, having observed it in other places since proposing this AfD, but feel it should be formalized through a guideline, which the essay is not. G. C. Hood (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had recognized consensus, why did you nominate this for AfD? --Oakshade (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize the consensus, having observed it in other places since proposing this AfD, but feel it should be formalized through a guideline, which the essay is not. G. C. Hood (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm going by long standing consensus, as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES as well as the common sense clause in WP:NOTABILITY. Suddenly changing the essay WP:NGEO as you just tried to do because you don't like the probable outcome of one afd is not going to change long standing consensus where there was no sign of consensus changing, including in this afd. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer, per Wikipedia's Five pillars. Also keep per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) and WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:27, 17 July 2012 (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.