Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mound, Louisiana

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 --JForget 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mound, Louisiana[edit]

Delete,Completely non-notable village of 12 people. Markb (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a pretty strong view that all places are kept and I think that has some merit. "All knowledge" should contain all places. --Bduke (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have all U.S. census designated places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a directory; each article should be here on it's own merit, not just because another article about another place exists. what's so special about the U.S. census anyway?Markb (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The working consensus noted in WP:OUTCOMES is that towns and villages are notable regardless of size. The U.S. Census Bureau designation makes the status of the village verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As you state, the historical consensus is noted in WP:OUTCOMES; it is not a set of rules. Markb (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no bright line boundary, but towns tend to be notable for their histories and their inhabitants. A quick Google search shows that important science was conducted in Mound in the first half of the 20th century, especially USDA mosquito control studies in the 1910s and 1920s. This village has something to write about. Even the place name has a story. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll change my vote if someone puts that in the article. By the way WP:OUTCOMES says " . . towns and villages are acceptable regardless of size", not notable. My interpretation of that would be a village is not AUTOMATICALLY notable. Spinningspark (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I too will happily withdraw if this sort of information were to be added to the article. Markb (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous article. Ironically, many of the same people who would argue that Madison Parish High School is non-notable... are those who will argue that a place in Madison Parish where the school bus happens to stop is "inherently notable". I have yet to see a policy that says that every frikcin' name on the map is entitled to its own article. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, there is precedent a lightyear long that all census-designated places are notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep - I agree.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stats seem notable: 4 households of which 33.3% are below the poverty line. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a serious "keep" or are you being sarcastic? For those who can't do arithmetic, 33.3% implies the number of households is divisible by three. For those that still don't get it; 4 does not divide by 3[1].Spinningspark (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Settlement acknowledged by U.S. Census Bureau [2]. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Wikipedia is not the U.S. Census Bureau and it is interesting to note that even they do not consider this village to be notable enough to hold on their website: http://www.census.gov Markb (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try the population finder on the right side of the page. Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Noted. 09:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sources do verify it as a real place, although really teensy. Ψν^Psi_nu 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is this 'light-year long precedent' that all places in the US census are notable actually documented in Wiki policy? Is there a discussion somewhere where a consensus was reached that you can point to? Would you accept inclusion of a village of 12 in Indonesia? There are an awful lot of small villages in Indonesia. Spinningspark (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not try to be comprehensive? Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. "non-notable village" does not compute. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - next they'll be deleting Prudhoe Bay, which incidentally has a population of 5. EJF (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the lowest possible minimum number of people -- 12-- for a hamlet/village to be per se notable, IMHO. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bot created articles for all US census locations, and they have been kept in AFDs so far as I know. Hamlets and villages in other countries have been kept on the basais of short entries in the 1911 Britannica or other proof of existence. These census entries or other governmental or historical or scholarly sources satisfy the Wikipedia requirement for verifiability. The common outcomes of countless AFDs have been that verifiable villages have been kept. Because of that implicit practice, a listing of multiple sources with substantial coverage may not be required as is normally the case to satisfy notability requirements, although that question could be argued at the talk page of WP:N. A comparable village in Indonesia which is listed as a census unit by that country's government should likewise be kept. Flooding at Mound, LA is discussed at [3] . The origin of the place name is discussed at [4]. There were important antimalarial experiments there in 1920-1930 [5] [6] [7] [8]. It has been a location in fiction [9]. The "Moneymaker" variety of pecan originated there [10]. Indian mounds there have been studied [11]. In summary, the stub article can be improved and expanded by adding reliable sources which discuss at least its historic river bank location, and the malaria research there.Edison (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I look forward to all this interesting stuff being added to the article. Markb (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. come on, you've had a day now to add it.... Markb (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no deadline. Of course, you're free to add the material. :) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All census-designated places are kept by consensus. The only requirement in the past has been to prove that they actually do exist. --Smashville^BONK! 07:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The United States Census Bureau says it exists, now all the way up to 13 residents. All such gazzetted places are notable. Alansohn (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a census-designated place. Beyond that, I'm inclined to think, contra Mandsford's comment, that every frickin' name on the map should have its own article; I wouldn't phrase it in terms of entitlement, but of service to our readers. JamesMLane t c 10:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The precedent for keeping census-designated places seems strong. I join with others in recommending that new material noted in the AfD discussion should be added to the article. The present contents of the article are not very interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - census-designated places should be kept. matt91486 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Census-designated place. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (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.