Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganddal

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. Bucketsofg 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganddal

Ganddal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Should be deleted this is a small district (even of norwegian standards) of Sandnes, and as such would be better off mentioned briefly there. None of the notability claims are really notable:

• Ganddalsdagen is only celebrated locally in this community, and not in any other parts of Sandnes or the region
• Ganddalitt of the Year is a non-notable award in every sense, has no function or notability outside this community, and none of the people mentioned are notable by any of Wikipedias standards, and as such does not contribute to making the district notable;
• Having lots of stores and a train station is in no way an indicator of the notability of a place;
• Stokkelandsvannet is in no way notable, neither for it's size (approx 4 km all the way around), it's levels of pollution or for any flora or fauna living there.
• Although the schools might be of some notability, they should in case have their own articles, and does not make the district itself notable. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 03:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is a precedent that named villages are notable, regardless of size. I agree that gazetted place names are notable enough, not to street level of course, but towns and villages certainly. It's notable enough for the Norwegian Wikipedia. --Canley 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) if it's a real place, which your comments seem to indicate it is, then Keep. Real villages are notable enough for WP, irrespective of their size. Sure, the article needs rewriting to tke out some of the dross and provide a few facts, but that is not a reason for deletion. Grutness...wha? 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as real places are generally inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but remove the cruft, i.e. everything beyond the first sentence. Punkmorten 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, all real places are notable in WP. Therefore, any village will be considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Cleanup the whole article, and remove all the cruft. Terence Ong 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Feeble Keep or preferably Merge to Sandnes per Precedents#Cities. Tiny Hamlet/suburb in small municipality (no mayor) stuggles with notability, but if it's enough, it's enough. —MURGH ^disc. 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a real town. Cities towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. This is like the AfD for Lost, Scotland. --Oakshade 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a real municipality district with clear set boundaries. The article does need some serious clean up, but is valid at present. (Incidentally, reasonably good articles on railway stations are generally kept.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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.