Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was The result of the debate was KEEP. syphonbyte 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gotem

Accusation
Article is repeatedly recreated with nonsense contents. Gotem is a very small hamlet in Limburg, not a city with 30K + inhabitants. Gotem has no encyclopedic value as it is in reality, and the article contains no info on the hamlet to show otherwise. Previous versions of the article were even worse. See also Polfbroekstraat for similar useless articles by same authors Fram 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment by nominator: see userpage of Syphonbyte] to notice that he or she is the same as The Raven and Gotem, and that they have made nonsense entries before (Eiland being one of them). The Raven admit as much on theuser page of Polfbroekstraat, which I want to include in this AfD. Fram 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Absolutely not, for your information syphonbyte is a colleague of mine. Although Gotem is one of his other (infrequently used) usernames, which it mentions on his user page.--The Raven 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not Raven. I can verify this if you wish, we are both colleagues working together. You may send me an email if you wish at syphonbyteATgmailDOTcom, or visit http://www.villageoffools.com to verify the existence of syphonbyte. You can visit http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmitrid to see that Raven is a totally different person. Or you could have looked at our edit histories to see that we have edited totally different articles with the exception of these Belgian ones. Furthermore, claiming that other "nonsense edits" have been made by me is insulting and slanderous. All of my edits are legitimate, and you can see this in my edit history. I created and did a lot of work on TOC2_protocol (in collaboration with Raven) and I am the author of MailSlot. I have made many other edits (however I am not going to turn this into a list of work that I have done at Wiki), and claiming that my work is "nonsense" is a personal attack. syphonbyte 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As a friend and colleague to both The_Raven and syphonbyte in the real world, I can attest to the fact that they are indeed two very different individuals. I could provide their names and contact numbers for verification, but that would be unreasonable due to privacy reasons. --Charlesxavier 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I never saw the article to know if it was nonsense or not, but it appears that Eiland is also a real place [1]. ScottW 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As is Polfbroekstraat [2]. ScottW 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • See this AfD's talk for the text of Eiland pre-deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Naturally it is a rural farming village, thus outlying farms must be considered in the census for the entire population. Judging from references this number is at least 20K inhabitants. If you disagree, cite relevant sources. Then, by all means, change the page.--The Raven 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article has been recreated once after somebody came along and deleted it after 2 years of edit history, which are now lost. The article is obviously not finished. Gotem also does have many inhabitants, as outlined by The Raven. The article is far from "useless," and if you wish to label it as such, then articles such as Pieter_Boogaart, which doesn't even have a single reference to verify its existence, are most certainly "useless." Anyhow, thus article exists at Dutch Wikipedia, certainly it ought to exist at English Wikipedia where there are people interested. (Like me.) syphonbyte 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Furthermore, if this article is a candidate for deletion, then all small cities of Belgium should be deleted as well. And if this were to happen, it should follow that all small cities in the world should be deleted as well, in order to preserve uniformity. Of course, this would be ridiculous, thus this article should be kept. If Ada, Oklahoma in the USA (where I used to live) with a population of around 15K according to the 2000 US census can have a page, then so should other obscure but existent cities all around the world. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like this article actually refers to Kottem [3], not Gotem [4]. Both are real places though. ScottW 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Kottem and Gotem are both names for the same Hamlet, on Dutch Wiki it's Gotem, so the article is named in this way. syphonbyte 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed. It says this under the 'Alternate Names' heading in the cited source. --The Raven 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Does anyone mind if I curse? Close your ears. Holy shit!! Why is a small town on CSD and AfD!? If somebody vandalized it and inserted nonsense - remove it. Sheesh! KEEP - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, real place. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, this was a legitimate page. Second, there are in fact two cities under the name of Gotem in Belgium. Third, all the information that is on the page right now was in earlier editions of the page, including information on BOTH cities. Now that it has been deleted and recreated, it will require more work to return all the information back to the page. Tachyon² 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is simply not true that there are two such places. The other place is called Gottem, and is part of Deinze. The place these guys have created out of the blue is Cotthem. It is a street and a green field in Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Both Sint-Lievens-Houtem and Deinze are in East-Flanders, which is not the same as the province of Limburg. I know, because I live between these two places...User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why it's small population precludes it from having a small article. Plenty of other cities of similar size have full length pages. Gotem (Gothem) is known for its small-town mystique to visitors (I myself have seen it), and, as such towns are often tourist destinations, a tourist passing through the city may wish further information on it. There is no reason for a comprehensive encyclopedia to lack a record of a city of this importance. PhoenixPinion 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Gotem is smaller than 1 square km, it has fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. Anything interesting there should be mentioned under Borgloon. And the nonsense edits to prove its existence and importance (creating a parallel universe in the province of East Flanders, which is not even Gotem's province) must be deleted ASAP as vandalism. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have modified the page to include information only on the city of Gotem. Kottem is indeed a seperate city and will need its own article. syphonbyte 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update I've created the Kottem article to differentiate between Gotem and Kottem (which is also known as Gotem).
  • I am a sysop and can fish stuff out on demand, if needed - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The recreation of Eiland by user syphonbyte only shows again that these guys (and I don't care if it one person or a bunch of friends) are only out to disrupt Wikipedia. Pleae, ask some senior editor from Flanders around here to look at the articles. Eiland does not exist, and there is no city of eiland. There is no city of Polfbroekstraat. There is a hamlet called Gotem, but it is tiny, and the population number given is not for "surrounding farms", it is because of the real cities lying around (like Borgloon, the municipality it is located in).
  • Comment The recreation of Eiland is due to the fact that it was deleted with absolutely no discussion at all because somebody thought it was not real and went on a deleting spree. I've done a lot of work here and I feel insulted again that you claim that we're only out to disrupt Wikipedia. syphonbyte 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone in Belgium would know that there is no large city called Eiland (or any of the others): the fault lies in the fallingrain website, which gives population numbers out of the blue: see e.g. this list for all "cities" in East Flanders, Belgium (the province has in reality a total population of almost 1.4 million: you'll notice on the Wikipedia link that neither Eiland nor Polfbroekstraat are mentioned as municipalities, let alone cities). Similarly, Gotem has a fanciful number of inhabitants (hey look, Gothem even has 84,000 inhabitants!). In short, these users try to create fanciful articles by using a tiny bit of reality, some very bizarre data on (legitimate) websites, and a lot of imagination, and seem to achieve this because at a glance, it looks legitimate. CrzRussian, I could by the same means start creating articles about the Russian cities of Anino and Annenskoye, both with 714,696 inhabitants, or perhaps Belyayeva or Belyayevo, with 749,719 inhabitants. Or let's take the USA: it seems wehave forgotten to create articles about Glenwood Heights, Florida, population 426,386, or the Coach Royal Trailer Park subdivision in California, population 443,982. Fram 08:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with your use of places like Glenwood Heights and Coach Royal Trail Park argument, Flam, is that these places exist within densely populated areas (as can be seen by the solid yellow coloring on the Fallinrain pages). Thus, the population (which is determined by a 7km radius from the point), captures an extraordinary number of people. Glenwood Heights is in the county of Miami-Dade which is world reknown for its beaches, nightlife and tropical setting. It is also dense in population since it is a large city. Yes, Fallingrain may be questionable but only under certain circumstances. In this case, it is not. Since Gotem is rural, it does not exist in a city or other area of dense population, thus it is not unreasonable to count everyone in a 7km radius. 7km (approximately 4.3 miles) actually a very small radius to count a population anywhere and is easily walking/biking distance in a rural setting. --Charlesxavier 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Example Hacking is a questionable activity, agreed? Well in certain cases it is a valid avenue of action, for instance in cases of national security. In the same way, Fallingrain is a double-edged sword. In some cases its data is questionable. In others, it makes logical sense. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • More comments: The authors have also created the article Kottem, for which the same arguments as for Gotem, Polfbroekstraat and Eiland count. They have also started a Wikiproject, where the first action was uncivility towards an editor. The goal of the project is: "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better document the history and geography of Belgium, especially less-widely known municipalities which play an important role in the history of Belgium". None of the articles in question document a mnunicipality, and none of the streets or hamlets they are talking about play "an important role in the history of Belgium". Again, this convinces me that the editors in questions have no honest intentions towards these articles and are just trying to pull our leg. Fram 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In your nomination, you state that Gotem is a "very small hamlet in Limburg." I can find multiple references to this place. I don't think there is any dispute over whether this is a real place. In general we keep such articles. I would agree that the fallingrain site gives somewhat misleading population counts, and perhaps these numbers should not be used in the article, but that's reason to fix the article, not to delete it. If you feel you can show a bad faith effort on the part of other editors to add nonsense articles, then there are other ways to do it. But so far as this article goes, I don't think there's sufficient reason for deleting it. ScottW 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, Eiland does appear to be somewhat less verifiable, but that's relevant to a different discussion. ScottW 13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Gotem is, as has been said, an existing place, though very small and non (or hardly) notable. The fact that it exists is already noted in the Borgloon article. As I don't see how it can ever become more than a stub, and as none of the info currently in the article is worth merging, I suggested deletion. I could have put merge instead, but what is there to merge? Current article: population is wrong, reference is wrong (in its data), picture is not relevant, Polfbroekstraat reference is wrong... So we are left with: Gotem is part of the municipality of Borgloon, in Limburg. All that info is included in the Borgloon article. No one has presented anything else that could be said about Gotem that would make it worthy of a separate place in this encyclopedia. Delete or redirect... Eiland is indeed, somewhat less verifiable, as in not at all. No city of that name exists in Flanders (there may be a cluster of three houses somewhere that is called Eiland, I don't know and care: it is unverifiable, unencyclopedic, and the current contents of the article are wrong. But I'll take it elsewhere, it was just to show the methods used by the editors involved, and the reasons to assume in this case bad faith instead of the usual good faith. Fram 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How can you assume that the editors are ill-intentioned? By the way, you are currently the only Wikipedian favoring deletion, whereas two major Wikipedia (and other Wiki-network) contributors in addition to 5+ others say otherwise. Why do you persist in accusing our efforts (and accusing members of sockpuppeting) and trying to delete the project page instead of helping us to correct it in a less drastic manner? Is your personal attack on our collective credibilities an attempt to discredit us in light of insufficient evidence for your argument? Yes it is. As I have stated previously, your arguments concerning the population count are weak since Gotem exists in a rural location rather than a metropolis for example. If you would like, I can fish out examples from all over the world. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you think the editors of this article are ill-intentioned, consider this: the largest PC vendors on the market today started out at shady warehouse operations. In America we celebrate something called the sense of entrepreneurship. People can risk credibility but they always have the opportunity to develop something great. If you really hate Gotem so much, why don't you go to the Dutch Wikipedia and delete that article? Better yet, why don't you help us translate its text and help us construct this article instead of tearing it down? --Charlesxavier 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.716552/Gotem/ :
  • "Gotem is a populated place in Limburg, which is a region of Belgium."


  • Comment:
  • Can you explain how a village that is part of a municipality with some 10,000 inhabitants can have 21,000 inhabitants?
  • It is Wikipedia policy to only include things because they are notable, not because they may become notable. Hence, your comparison to PC vendors is baseless.
  • I feel that the two Wikipedia editors that voted/vote keep have been fooled. The other users seem to be one "group", as has been shown for some of them. They are not objective.
  • Why should I help on a project that has as its target to write pages about four hamlets because they are claimed to be important in the history of Belgium, when that isn't true? A project that starts out with such false objectives isn't worth defending or collaborating on, no matter how neutral a name it has
  • This is the version of Gotem with the "2 year editing history which are lost":
Gotem is a small city in the Flemish Barbant province of Belgium. It has postal code 3840.
Some facts about GOTEM are as follows: It has Lattitude 50.9167 degrees, Longtitude 3.8500 degrees, and an altitude of 59 meters. Its population is estimated at 39070, although it may increase to 39071 within the week. Alternate names for the city include Kottem and Cotthem. The city of Polfbroekstraat is .6 nm away from it.
Typically when one enters the city the name is said in salutation. Thus the phrase "GOTEM". Although this may be a bit of an urban legend.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotem" Categories: Belgium geography stubs
  • What is the info that was deleted? Let's see: the wrong province, teh wrong inhabitants, a ridiculous sentence about an increase in inhabitants, wrong alternate names, wrong info on Polfbroekstraat, and a ridiculous ending about the salutation. If you try to defend this, why would I take you or your intentions seriously?
  • This is the cached entry for Eiland, again referencing Gotem in a nonsensical way (the rest of the article isn't any better.
  • As for the people saying that the articles are (potentially) worthwhile because the placenames exist: yes, but they are streets, nothing more. Gotem is the only small village among them, the others are so unimportant that e.g. Polfbroekstraat has one (1) link on a Belgian page on Google. Now, if someone can give me a good text link for the medium-sized city of Eiland, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, it may be time to start believing that there is no medium-sized city with name, just like there is no village called Gotem with 20,000 inhabitants, etcetera. Fram 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

  • The data in the article could be incorrect; Wikipedia is not a primary source anyhow.
  • That comment was not saying that Gotem is an entrepreneurship, but that we as editors are in a way.
  • Nobody is objective in a debate, otherwise there would be no debate. We are the article creators, so of course we are not objective. You obviously are not objective, either.
  • You could help with the project if you felt a need to work on the articles about Belgium. Considering that you are Belgian (or at least I'm guessing this, since you claim to have been there, speak Dutch and like Belgian comics), this would help the project quite a bit. Also, the project is entirely neutral. The overall objective is to improve the articles on Belgium, and this is what we are trying to do.
  • That article was deleted because Gurch said that it was "not a real place," which it obviously is, and not for the reasons you said. I am defending this because it was deleted wrongly, even if it was somewhat ridiculous. The new article is obviously not, and a lot of work has been done to it in the last 24 hours alone.
  • All of the Eiland article makes perfect sense, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
  • Yes, that is the cache for that article which was also deleted without any discussion.
  • I don't believe these articles are streets, except Polfbroekstraat, since straat is Dutch for street if I'm correct. At any rate, there are many articles on streets in Wiki, and according to Falling Rain, those are cities or towns, hence the phrase on the page "nearby cities and towns."

syphonbyte 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative medium through which we can better understand our world. This means improvement upon legitimate articles, not outright deletion. I acknowledge that the previous articles were poorly written and perhaps not very factual. However, I have taken steps to rebuild the credibility of Gotem and remain dedicated to improving its article page. In no way do I or my colleagues condone vandalism or creation of articles based on false subjects. As for the population count, if you can provide evidence that it is lower (around 10K as you suggest) then by all means change the details, but don't use it as your motivation to delete an article simply because you think the number is too large. I further challenge you to visit the coordinates 50° 47' 60" N, 5° 17' 60" E and see for yourself that there indeed is a bustling population there, so much so that there is a local airport and plenty of hotels. I have never heard of hotels or airports in insignificant villages. There is obviously some commerce going on in the region and thus Gotem has, in addition to historical and cultural value, commercial value.

--Charlesxavier 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - are the original posters translating from french? - my missus is telling me over my shoulder in an worked up manner that because of "administration components" (the best english word we can find) - a reletively small area can be called a town or city? Therefore part of the problem might be the difference in meaning and terminology between them. She has also read the article and finds nothing wrong with most of the detail but cannot confirm the population - looking further into this. --Charlesknight 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you mean Arrondissements? If so, an equivalent in the American local government system would be the County, which is not insignificant (See Miami_dade). Also, I will conduct a search to find the best possible compromise on Gotem's population using data not from Fallingrain.--Charlesxavier 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm english so the american system is lost on me :) No she doesn't mean that but I'm em.. having a few translation issues and will get back to you. She is however ranting about how Durbuy is an example of what she mean. Get back to you in a bit. --Charlesknight 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you want a different look at the places involved: check out a routeplanner like Viamichelin: Gotem exists and is tiny (located only 3 kilometres from teh centre of Borgloon, so the pouplatoin of the rural surroundings argument is quite wrong): Eiland does not exists, neither does Polfbroekstraat, or Oordegemsestraat. If the Viamichelin routeplanner doesn't know a medium-sized city, then we have a serious problem... Fram 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Does your search correspond to 50° 47' 60" N, 5° 17' 60" E ???--Charlesxavier 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment what's going on here? - Polfbroekstraat (Polbroekstraat) is in Oost-Vlaanderen province, as does Oordegemsestraat - both exist! --Charlesknight 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI think that this behaviour, changing text from another user (from 'Comment' to 'Attack') is unacceptable. If you consider it an attack, say so in your response: don't edit what I wrote. Fram 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, I changed it back to Comment. syphonbyte 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • stupid edit conflicts have prevented me from posting for 10 minutes... I saw Fram's comment and changed it back to Comment...--Charlesxavier 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Granted the previous version of the articles seemed to be nonsense, however the proper solution for solving 'nonsense' when there is a 2 year history is reverting, not deleting without warning. Although I feel that, thanks to this deletion and subsequent battle over Gotem, the page has actually become much better than it ever was. So, in a sense, I have you to thank for this. *Also how can you claim Gotem is not notable? In my opinion Charlesxavier has established this without a doubt (see castle, and origin of family name). What you say about the size of the cities themselves may be true, but the (current) information (such as on Polfbroekstraat) on the pages is not inaccurate, it is noted that the 'population' figure is taken from an x km radius.--The Raven 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please End This

No matter who is right about what, the fact remains that User:Fram is trying do delete this article simply because he thinks Gotem is insignificant. Well, this article meets the Verifiability guidelines of Wikipedia and thus should be kept. I do not want to argue or see more arguments for or against the factuality of the Gotem article, since we have already established that it is a true and meaningful location. --Charlesxavier

This AfD has only been up for about 24 hours, I'm not sure if it should be ended so quickly. --Syphonbyte

[edit] Downsize Me

  • According to Borgloon and similar Googled sites, the population density of Borgloon is 196.49 inhabitants per km². Judging by the shape of Gotem which is denoted by the dashed line at the Viamichelin site (click on map to zoom in and get a better view), the area of Gotem is approximately 6 km². Thus 196.49 x 6 = 1178.94 which is approximately 1179. This figure should satisfy Fram and others who doubt the current given population. However, this is not the final figure by any means, and I am searching for further evidence to find a more accurate number. --Charlesxavier 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop this nonsense!

I happen to live in Belgium, lees than 15 km from Cotthem, Polbroek and Eiland. These are simply streets in the still largely rural town of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. One of my sources for this is Stratenatlas van Vlaanderen - Guide des Rues de Flandre. Standaard Uitgeverij, ISBN 90-0-20614-3. If anyone wants pictures of these streets, I will provide them next week (I have to correct a lot of exam papers now)- I like to cycle in that area. It is time to stop this nonsense. Fram is perfectly right. All these articles must be deleted ASAP. They constitute vandalism. As for Gotem, it does exist, but is far smaller than claimed by its supporters here (according to the same source as quoted above, less than 1 square kilometre). The place in East-Flanders is called Gottem (with two t's - and that influences the pronuciation) and is now part of Deinze. By the way, the fact that these guys do note even realize that the province of East Flanders is not the same as the province of Limburg and is in fact to the WEST of it (Belgians are particular at geography, you see) proves that they have invented all this. Stop creating a parallel universe and start writing real articles. Or leave Wikipedia, which you are just rubbishing with these edits. .User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of my current position

While I would like the AfD to continue for now as a place of discussion, I don't think that the current article on Gotem, which finally is about a real, though small, village (hamlet, whatever) should any longer be deleted. After the users involved have had two years of editing and only could produce wrong facts about the village, this AfD has achieved that they have researched finally the village they wanted to have an article. Why they cretade an article about a place they knew nothing about escapes me, but the current article, minus a few serious errors, can be kept (it would be better merged with Borgloon, but that is a minor point). As for the other articles, and the project: delete them all. The three articles (including Oordegemsestraat) can never become worthwhile, as there is (as opposed to Gotem) no village to describe. It's just a poin ton a map. The article Eiland is the most ridiculous of them all. The project, while having a nuetral title, is as it is presented (defending those three articles), equally worthless. If the authords want to change it in a worthwhile project, they are free to do so. I feel no need for it. As for contributing to articles about Belgium: I have done so, quite a lot in fact, as can be seen on my contributions page. I don't feel the need to create articles about smaller entities than the municipalities except in certain important cases (like the Antwerp districts, or Doel), but people that are willing to make a serious article about such villages (deelgemeentes) are of course welcome. I would never SD or AfD those. Finally, I will probably in the next few days start AfD's on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat, so the discussion of those can be held separately. I will ask some long-retm editors from Belgium to have a look at the articles and give their impression, so that we got some impartial and informed opinions on them (as most of the opinions here lacked one or both). If no new arguments or questions are raised here, I'll probably take my criticisms of the current Gotem page to the discussion page of the article, and stay out of here. I stand behind my earlier statements here, and behind the AfD, because the article at the time of the AfD wasn't worth anything and did not refer to a real village. Now it does, and now it contains some correct info, and so for me it can stay. Fram 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment on the project; the current goal was to defend these articles because they are relevant to the project and quite pressing. The overall goal is similar to other projects about countries, and this will remain the overall goal of the project. syphonbyte 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In what way are these articles relevant to the project? How are Eiland or Polfbroekstraat important to the history of Belgium? What prior knowledge did you have of these places before creating the articles and the project to let you make such a statement? You didn't know where Gotem was, how big it was, or anything else about it, but still you decided that it had to have an article and a project for it and the likes? Fram 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The project is for Belgium, and was created long after those articles existed. Since they are related to Belgium and are the work of the only current members of the Belgian WikiProject, it made sense for them to be part of the project. At any rate, the Belgian WikiProject didn't even exist until I made it, and I phrased the goals generally enough to allow work on a lot of other Belgian pages to be coordinated through the Project, which was my intention. syphonbyte 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The End

This AfD no longer has any use, I believe. The clear consensus is Keep, for Gotem at least. All discussion should be moved to the relevant talk page. I'll preserve this page. If any admins or anybody like that think this page should be opened back up for edits for some reason, then go ahead and do that, but I think the article's talk page is much more appropriate.


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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Gotem_fb7e.html"