Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budaghers, New Mexico

Add links
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. John254 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budaghers, New Mexico[edit]

Budaghers, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails notability guidelines on places; it's an abandoned trading post off an american highway exit. Ironholds 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No firm evidence this was a settlement. The USGS says the place was noted but can't say where it was. However, it was a locale that shared the Algodones, New Mexico 87001 ZIP code. Not much else can be verified. With a little more verifiable info, it might be worth a merge/redirect to Sandoval County. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Since additional secondary coverage has been found as noted below, this locale is notable enough not to delete. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is the in-depth subject of secondary sources [1][2][3], the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proves it exists, but doesn't make any mention of notability. I think of it like passover; how is this highway stop different from all other highway stops? Ironholds 08:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:RS coverage establishes enough verifiable WP:LOCAL importance (essay, not a guideline) to avoid an outright deletion. Whether or not the place deserves its own article, the problems here are surmountable by editing. • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources exist to establish that as a place, it is notable enough. Concur with Oakshade. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first reaction was that this was a town or settlement that no longer exists, and "ghost towns" certainly are notable... but then I read the article and found that it's not a settlement or a town or a ghost town, but a store. Delete --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But even as a previous trading post it is the in-depth subject of reliable secondary sources, which is the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. There's no requirement that any geographical location must be or have been a "town.". A topic can be notable for other reasons. --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response True, but I do not find that is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Yes, they are. And they are quite nice. They are from the Albuquerque Journal and the Albuquerque Tribune--the Tribune had a circulation of a mere 10,000 when it ceased publication earlier this year. The Journal is quite larger, with a circulation of 105,000 weekly, 145,000 Sunday and is the largest paper in New Mexico. Still, that's significantly less than the Omaha World-Herald at 184,000/222,000 or even the Tulsa World at 120,000/171,000--papers that I would not say necessarily constitute "widely read". Sure, circulation isn't the only measure of a paper's influence, but I'd argue that these articles--while good and useful--do not constitute notability at the level we normally pursue on Wikipedia--they are more of a state or even local issue, as written. Sure, there are exceptions and online newspapers certainly will not be the only source worth considering. What's the reason that this place is notable? Why would someone in China care? Is it historically significant? Why would someone care in 100 years? These are the kinds of questions we like to ask ourselves (or at least I like to ask myself) about notability concerns.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHOCARES and WP:UNKNOWNHERE are not a good arguments to delete an article. How do you know people outside the area won't care? I happen to read articles of localities and/or entities that are 100 years old with great interest and I know I'm not alone with that. You and many other people may not read articles like this and that's fine. This is why Wikipedia has come up with notability standards, to have a uniformed criteria as to what is considered worthy of inclusion. There are absolutely no "People in China don't care" or "Probably won't be interesting in 100 years" clauses or anything like them anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as we cover localities, and we should, then this is within our scope. The sources are fully adequate. WP is not the encyclopedia of a few very notable topics only, or we'd be far smaller than Brittanica and nobody would know of us at all. DGG (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as secondary sources can prove that this location exists, it is indeed notable. The size or scope of a newspaper does not diminish its importance as a secondary source when determining notability. On a side note, I am amused that my local newspaper (the Tulsa World) has been mentioned here :) Okiefromokla questions? 02:38, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Budaghers,_New_Mexico&oldid=1069664192"