Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hjälstaby

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 speedy keep. It's probably snowing over there (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hjälstaby[edit]

Advertising, A small settlement (from google maps looked 17 houses) in the middle of nowhere. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, still a settlement. As part of my magic trick (gather closely kids) watch as the 'advertising' goes away with the removal of 3 words and the click of an edit button! Huzzam! Ironholds (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article says what anyone that looks up the article would already know, "Hjälstaby is a city in uppsala län." I will change my !vote to keep if the article gets expanded. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if someone did not know about the settlement, the article is still not useful. Schuym1 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats Right, It is nothing to expand with!! Thats the biggest reason of why it got nominated. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you couldn't find anything on google? Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not my responsibility. Schuym1 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually that was directed at the nominator, my point being he should at least do some basic research before taking it to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And to prove said point: first page of the google search results for 'Hjälstaby' yielded info I've added to the article. Take a gander. Ironholds (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ironholds, not an advertisement, verifiable settlement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: per article improvement. 03:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuym1 (talk • contribs)
Keep Even absent Ironholds's adding the infobox data, this'd likely, consistent with our practice vis-à-vis geographic locations, have been a "keep" (an argument that, in the complete absence of sourcing for the existence of the settlement and of any content save one sentence, redirection [pending expansion] to Uppsala County would be appropriate might have been sustained, but it is not, in any case, one with which I'd have been in sympathy), and it surely is now. Joe 06:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While short, the article gives the proper context and also shares statistical information about the place. Clearly non-advertorial and useful after edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the swedish article [1]. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a verified, existing settlement. --Bonadea (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - settlements are inherently of encyclopaedic interest. Product before process. Wily D 14:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bonadea. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (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.