Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louina, Alabama

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. I must note that the arguments "there are other towns like this with articles" and "this means that there are lots of similar articles to be created" are both not reasons to keep/delete - the former is only applicable if the precedent article has gone through AfD, and then it is only a persuasive precedent; and the latter was disapproved by Jimbo Wales through pipermail to not be a reason to delete any article from Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louina, Alabama[edit]

Non-notable. Should either be deleted or re-directed to Randolph County, Alabama. Drennleberrn 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator has not denied that it was at one time the largest town in the county. Gazpacho 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete. Punkmorten 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What makes Louina different from any of the other ghost towns with its own page? SliceNYC 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for all reasons given above. Kestenbaum 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but deplore the nominator-bashing. WP:AGF please. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete As I understand the article, the town only existed for 70 years at a time when it was probably easy to be the largest town in the county. If we adopt this criteria to the UK, there would be literally 1000s, (10,000s) of small settlements that were at one time settled for more than 70 years. The scottish highlands is full of old ghost villages probably all with several hundred years , if not thousands of years of history. --Mike 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All real places are notable, even if they no longer exist. Resolute 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It's a real place with a real history. The reason the scottish articles aren't loaded with these things is because no one has written the articles. Robovski 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough, within context. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:38, 8 November 2006 (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.