Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajgorë

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 (non-admin closure). Consensus is clear—keep this article. By the way I agree that this village is notable. Ruslik (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bajgorë[edit]

Very little content consisting mostly of original research about an unremarkable place. Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All towns are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just want to emphasize that this position has no support in WP:N.Kww (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep consensus has shown that all verifiable places are notable, per common outcomes. Glancing at a quick Google News search,[1] there are some notable events verifying the existance of this place. This village is not unremarkable, as shown by[2][3][4][5][6] EJF (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All real towns are notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just want to emphasize that this position has no support in WP:N.Kww (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Notable only for being associated with the Kosovo Liberation Army. Despite popular myth, the concept of "inherent notability" is not recognized by any policy or guideline, and there is no exemption from WP:N for geographic locations. This village does not merit an individual article.
Kww (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree that "inherent notability" of populated places does not have consensus, this town has plenty of secondary sources; it was fought over in the Kosovo War, just as an example. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Place articles are the basis for other articles to be merged into if they fail to meet criteria and as such are useful even though they contain minimal information. As per above there are several things for which the place is known for. Keith D (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes, repetition is necessary: all real towns are notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All towns are not notable, and there is no policy on Wikipedia saying that they are. Notability must be established for all articles, regardless of their subject. This particular article is unreferenced, and makes claims about "amazing wildlife" and popularity that are unsupported. At the very least, it should be merged with Kosovska Mitrovica. Even Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Places states that there must be a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Have to back up Scjessey on this one: there is no such thing as inherent notability, and there is no reason to believe that all towns are notable. There is no exclusion for towns in WP:N, and towns need to meet the same notability standards as any other topic: direct and detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. The most that anyone has shown for this town are passing mentions. Anyone care to point at two direct and detailed examinations of the town in question?Kww (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually towns are inherently notable, just by virtue of being a population center. Never has a verified town been deleted because of this. Just by their existence historic government documents exist, either historic or contemporary. Even WP:N states at the top that the guideline "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Common sense tells me that we shouldn't write articles without verifiable information, and that the million or so unsourced articles about villages that people seem bent on including in Wikipedia are far from an occasional exception.Kww (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to interpret "occasional" as to the types of topics, not to the raw numerical article amount of them. We are free to disagree with consensus, but we need to respect it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know that, but it doesn't appear it has. --Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the pool of larger, more easily verified populated places without Wikipedia articles has shrunk, the remaining villages are qualitatively and quantitatively different. This is why resistance has increased of late. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this "resistance has increased of late" occurring. I've not seen any town AfD, recently or otherwise, that was anything close to "resistance." --Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahammadkati. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that AfD was closed incorrectly (it was more of a "Keep" than a "no consensus") and the closing admin has been known to have a deletionist POV. --Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed early, by an admin who ignored WP:PSTS and WP:V which put the burden of proof on the article creators. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what always makes these things so painful. Inherently notable is basically Latin for I like it. It's an argument that should be essentially discounted by the closing admin, and certainly weighed less than the plain language of WP:PSTS and WP:V. Unfortunately, these things turn into votes, and admins tend to count keeps and deletes instead of evaluating the arguments.
Kww (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inherently notable is basically Latin for I like it."

I'm sorry, but that kind of insulting language is not helpful in discussing the merits of this article and I won't respond to it. --Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you thought it was insulting language. How's this for a better version: Inherent notability is an argument that has no foundation in any guideline or policy, and, as such, should not carry any weight in an AFD.
Kww (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent for readability) We're going in circles now. As WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly on top; "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." WP:CONSENSUS has long found that settlements as one of those common sense exceptions. Two users fighting tooth and nail on the WP:GEOBOT project talk page arguing against this is not a change of Wikipedia consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far more than two editors. Didn't you notice that when the question of including locations based on atlases, the nose count was 2:1 against including locations based on atlases? That doesn't seem like a consensus for inherent notability of settlements to me, and it was not just "two editors fighting tooth and nail."
Kww (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2:1?? Every "survey" I see on that page is not anything close to 2:1. And remember, you're just talking about a project talk page, not a guideline or policy one. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over Geobot is pretty good evidence that it has ... it was required to insert a notability check before approval. I would describe consensus as being in flux. There seems to be a small core of people that attend to AFD discussions that truly and sincerely believe that all places are notable. Once you get out of that group, opinions are far more diverse.
Kww (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a very large group of people attend AfD discussions and a comparatively very small group of people have participated on that Geobot talk page debate (Geobot of course being a project page and not a guideline or policy). --Oakshade (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EJF and Eastmain. Settlements are the kind of subjects which one would expect to find in a paper encyclopedia, so we should be very lenient with inclusion standards for those subjects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leniency on inclusion should be met with rigor on verifiability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I agree with you (and I see you also went with keep on this particular article.) My feeling is that articles on real verified settlements should not be deleted because of a overly strict reliance on a wiki-created definition of "notability". Articles on settlements/neighborhoods which cannot be verified to even exist should be deleted, hence my vote to delete Koreatown, Vancouver. However, even if the present sourcing is only sufficient to maintain a short but verifiable article, then that article can still be better than nothing since even a skeleton article can provide some benefit to a reader (commercial encyclopedias are full of such articles which we would call "stubs"). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per most above. Towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inhabited settlements whose existence is verified merit articles. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 18 August 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.