Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villiers-en-Plaine

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 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villiers-en-Plaine[edit]

Not notable. Very limited amount of information; it's articles like these that unnecessarily use Wikipedia's bandwidth. ^F*^L*^RAP 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Long-standing consensus says that all towns, villages, etc. etc. are inherently notable. "Very limited amount of information" is not per se a reason for deletion; Wikipedia has millions of stubs, and most of them could easily be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Already discussed and approved in an AN/I discussion . Who is this guy to assume its not notable? Thats laughable sorry. You could probably find all sorts of articles to write on places in the town let alone a main article. *Offical site proves this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns/villages are inherently notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit of bandwidth. --Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid stub. Fg2 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would hardly be a comprehensive encyclopedia if we just 'ignored' certain places. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even small villages are inherently notable. As Ten Pound Hammer mentioned, this has been Wikipedia's practice for a long time. Paper encyclopedias have long listed smaller villages than this, at least in the countries they are marketed to. "Bandwidth" (really, storage space) is not in such short supply as the nominator seems to think, and we have more of it than any paper encyclopedia. Cardamon (talk) 22:20, 16 February 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.