Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pere Cheney, Michigan

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. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pere Cheney, Michigan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable, barely defined allegedly haunted area WuhWuzDat 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up, expand. This place gets a substantial number of Google Books hits, indicating sources from which notability can be verified. bd2412 T 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Formerly a temporary county seat, according to a footnote, which indicates that this town existed at one time. That's all that's necessary for notability as far as I'm concerned. Article needs greater specificity and the form of the footnotes need to be fixed. I've gotta go to work pretty quick here or I'd do that myself... Carrite (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is probably not familiar with the usual outcome on populated communities, but far less notable inhabited places than this have been kept, merely on proof of having existed. In this instance, it's been the subject of coverage by multiple sources. And yes, it was the county seat at one time [1]. Mandsford 18:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the nominator's defense, the article was in much worse shape at the time of its nomination. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I commend you for all the improvements made, acknowledging also that the nomination brought something to your attention that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Still, we don't know for sure that User:Perecheney2011 was finished with working on the article, and the simplest of Google searches would have shown that the town was genuine. I've never really understood the concept of waiting for new articles to be posted and then instantly nominating them for deletion. Mandsford 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPP. WuhWuzDat 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with it. There's a specific section in WP:NPP about dealing with new editors that's worth reading. A service like Wikipedia, which stays up because of public support rather than advertising, depends on continuing to attract and keep new participants. And within the page on nominating, there's that WP:BEFORE thing that says "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." I'll throw in some italics here: I've never really understood the concept of waiting for new articles to be posted and then instantly nominating them for deletion. Mandsford 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While article clearly needs improvement, long-standing consensus is that real towns are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2011 (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.