Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andavadoaka

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 per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW, consensus has proven time and time again that any village, city, town, etc. is inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andavadoaka

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

non-notable fishing village in remote location of Madagascar; article makes only half-hearted assertion of notability. It was created by someone connected to the non-profit organization that, the article asserts, is based there, yet the organization itself doesn't even have a page. This article seems like a way for the organization to get itself on wikipedia without having to create a clearly COI article about itself, and to plug it as an ecotourism destination. I know some people think that any location on earth is inherently notable and deserving an article, so I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. Apollo58 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the argument that any location on earth is inherently notable and merits an article. That is the existing precedent. If this wasn't a real place, that might merit something else, but I'll at least need some argument as to it not being recognized by the gov't. FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit strong to call that a "precedent"? In my opinion it's not a precedent but rather a rationale that some people use, while another set of users believe exactly the opposite. I certainly have seen enough AfDs close with little discussion or interest and then get used as a "precedent" a week later. -Apollo58 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because there are literally dozens of cases where it's been used over the course of several years. That's not a weak precedent at all. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And, do we really know this is an officially recognized place? There aren't any citations independant of the (arguably) spam site of the people who created the article. The only google hits are the same article, mirrors of it, and mirrors of wikipedia. Is this location just a neighborhood of a larger town? Is it nothing but a collection of huts that this NPO is choosing to call a village, perhaps for political purposes? I don't know, and neither will anybody judging from the content of the article. Given that situation, does that change the relation of this article to WP:OUTCOMES?-Apollo58 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to make an effort to find out whether or not this locale has official recognition by anyone. That would be a valid argument for deletion. However, the onus of doing that is up to you. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that it is a hoax, on the contrary it gets far too many mentions for that. According to [1] (and several other websites) the village has a population of 1200, so it's not "a collection of huts that this NPO is choosing to call a village". Hut 8.5 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Even the Madagascar government says it has a population of 1,100. [2] --Oakshade 18:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, villages are inherently notable, regardless of size, and this precedent is longstanding. Some spammy material could be removed though. Hut 8.5 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a real village that people live and work in. It is inherently notable. That's why WP:OUTCOMES (a successor to WP:AFDP, the "P" standing for "precedent) has always kept population centers. --Oakshade 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, villages such as there are inherently notable and worthy of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, which will have to do until there is a formal guideline regarding notability of human settlements. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 23 August 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.