Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amurn

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 Speedy close per the fact that it's a procedural nomination to discuss a policy implementation that is already occuring in a centralised discussion elsewhere.. naerii - talk 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amurn

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

Please, please limit discussion to notability of towns like Amurn and other suitable AFD concerns. All other discussion should be posted here instead.

Procedural nomination. Several editors at the linked discussion believe towns like Amurn are nonnotable; several believe they are notable. I want to applaud the hard work of fine editors like Fritzpoll, Blofeld of SPECTRE, or Editorofthewiki in making this article possible, as well as the two million articles expected to be structurally similar to it; I have nothing against any of them, nor against the hundreds or thousands of fine Afghanis who live in Amurn, as my comment below shows. I am creating this page solely for the purpose of centralized community discussion on whether towns like Amurn are inherently notable, and I do not expect to participate further.

Please focus your discussion on the two million towns like Amurn, and not Amurn itself, as discussion about Amurn itself will only tend to skew the AFD without providing an answer to the larger and more important question. Please choose among Keep, Merge and redirect, and Delete, as I don't believe other options will be fruitful. JJB 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as nonnotable; the slight usable content would move to Darvaz, its historical district. Simple argument. The community has generally held for years that any town article is theoretically notable; this judgment, however, has been based on the fact that some human took a minimum level of interest in the town and a minimum level of effort to create its article (and, when challenged, to defend it). Thanks to Fritzpoll, we now have a technological change in the balance of power and approximately two million articles can be created with a much lower level of average effort. Therefore the prior consensus does not demonstrate notability for towns which no human has taken the minimum level of interest in the specific town itself, or the minimum level of effort in creating the article. (The other challenges related to the bulk issue, i.e., having two million one-line articles, with good formatting but without much more hard information than name and location, are to be discussed at the link above. This page relates to the individual independent notability issue.) I believe that some other threshold should replace the effort threshold for these two million towns, preferable demonstration of some minimum population (the figure itself is unimportant because it can start high, say 50,000, and be adjusted lower by increments until the community finds the appropriate level, say 1,000). JJB 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wrong forum - I appreciate the sentiment, but there is a proposed notability guideline that could better cover this issue. The community is also discussing this in a centralised fashion elsewhere. For a general proposal, see Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation), I think Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wrong forum per Fritz. Wrad (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close There appears to be centralised discussion. EJF (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close What about WP:POINT? Also, Amurn - and other cities and villages - are inherently notable per WP:N. Plrk (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (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.