Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funningsfjørður
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 due to nearly unanimous consensus for this result. John254 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Funningsfjørður
It's a village, with a population of 68 (apparently). How is that notable? Cain Mosni 01:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is a real place. T REXspeak 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There is no question whether the place exists or not, but that alone does not establish merit. But there is no suggestion of notability. Cain Mosni 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep all places are notable.--Húsönd 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- The patch of grassland to the side of my house is a place, and I can point to government records that prove it. It isn't notable. Notability is not a blanket. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I believe any town or settlement is inherently notable. —dustmite 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above. Bwithh 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. MER-C 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Village is not notable. --Holdek (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- A bare assertion of non-notability is as empty a rationale as a bare assertion of notability is. Neither really make any contribution to the discussion that helps the closing administrator. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's impossible to prove a negative. Look at the example you give above about the patch of grassland next to your house. You give a "bare assertion of non-notability" about it. Maybe you should follow your own advice and remove that example, since according to you those kind of comments don't really help the discussion? --Holdek (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are being asked to replace your bare assertion that something is non-notable with a proper rationale that actually addresses the article subject, states what research you did on it, and how you determined that the subject was non-notable; not to prove a negative. And my statement above is an example of a non-notable real place, and not an argument for that place being non-notable, as your rationale is supposed to be. Uncle G 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Being non-notable is not a positive feature, it is a lack of one. It is inherently an unprovable negative. It can, however, be disproved by simply asserting the positive - i.e notability (since it is a simple binary value). One of the most frequently raised issues of whether an article merits existence or not (after simple verifiability, which I never questioned in the momination) is notability. In abstract an entity's mere existence is not generally accepted as sufficient for it to warrant encyclopaedic inclusion. There has to be some facet of that entity's existence which makes it worthy of note above the everyday noise. Common consensus appears to be that notability (or rather lack of) is every bit as good a rationale for questioning the merit of an article. Equally, given the expressed oinion here, it would seem that common consensus is that the mere existence of a named settlement is notability enough to merit an article. That being the case, I expect an admin to close this quickly as a keep under WP:SNOW, although I personally disagree with the general course of opinion here, and would expect a place to require cultural, historical, political or economic significance. Cain Mosni 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are entirely missing the clearly stated point, which is that the rationale was, and is, no rationale at all. A bare assertion of non-notability, unaccompanied by any explanation of what criteria are being applied, what research was done, and how the research led tothe conclusion, is not a rationale. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD.
You are also erroneously conflating notability with exception. Being exceptional is not the basis upon which things are included. Once again, see User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are entirely missing the clearly stated point, which is that the rationale was, and is, no rationale at all. A bare assertion of non-notability, unaccompanied by any explanation of what criteria are being applied, what research was done, and how the research led tothe conclusion, is not a rationale. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD.
- Uncle G- My "proper rationale" for saying that this article should be deleted is that it is not notable-- in other words, there is nothing in the article that suggests that it is notable, which is a requisite (in my opinion) for keeping articles. In that vein, I'm not quite sure you understand what "disproving a negative means." Cain Mosni explains the concept in the preceding comment.
As for your example, your very use of it contradicts your point. --Holdek (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. I already explained why once, above. Please read it again, carefully. Uncle G 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Being non-notable is not a positive feature, it is a lack of one. It is inherently an unprovable negative. It can, however, be disproved by simply asserting the positive - i.e notability (since it is a simple binary value). One of the most frequently raised issues of whether an article merits existence or not (after simple verifiability, which I never questioned in the momination) is notability. In abstract an entity's mere existence is not generally accepted as sufficient for it to warrant encyclopaedic inclusion. There has to be some facet of that entity's existence which makes it worthy of note above the everyday noise. Common consensus appears to be that notability (or rather lack of) is every bit as good a rationale for questioning the merit of an article. Equally, given the expressed oinion here, it would seem that common consensus is that the mere existence of a named settlement is notability enough to merit an article. That being the case, I expect an admin to close this quickly as a keep under WP:SNOW, although I personally disagree with the general course of opinion here, and would expect a place to require cultural, historical, political or economic significance. Cain Mosni 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are being asked to replace your bare assertion that something is non-notable with a proper rationale that actually addresses the article subject, states what research you did on it, and how you determined that the subject was non-notable; not to prove a negative. And my statement above is an example of a non-notable real place, and not an argument for that place being non-notable, as your rationale is supposed to be. Uncle G 00:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's impossible to prove a negative. Look at the example you give above about the patch of grassland next to your house. You give a "bare assertion of non-notability" about it. Maybe you should follow your own advice and remove that example, since according to you those kind of comments don't really help the discussion? --Holdek (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- A bare assertion of non-notability is as empty a rationale as a bare assertion of notability is. Neither really make any contribution to the discussion that helps the closing administrator. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.
I'm reasonably sure the general consensus has been that a place which has a name is notable, regardless of population. In terms of the exact population here, just remember that we're dealing with a very small country in the first place, so it's not as if this is a 68-strong village in the middle of the USA or Russia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)In light of below comments, I still incline towards keeping the article but because of the fact that there is some history to the place and also the various citations which Uncle G provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)- No. Danmark (island) (AfD discussion) and Hoy (Lake Constance) (AfD discussion) are both places that have names. Simply having a name isn't enough. That just gets one an article title with no content. There has to be content to write about the place, to fill the article in with, which in turn means that there have to be sources to work from. These can include census reports, history books, geography articles, geology studies, and all kinds of other things. But they have to exist.
The argument about population is a red herring, by the way. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- No. Danmark (island) (AfD discussion) and Hoy (Lake Constance) (AfD discussion) are both places that have names. Simply having a name isn't enough. That just gets one an article title with no content. There has to be content to write about the place, to fill the article in with, which in turn means that there have to be sources to work from. These can include census reports, history books, geography articles, geology studies, and all kinds of other things. But they have to exist.
- It's both a village and a fjord. (It's the second largest fjord on the island.) People have written about the salmon fishing there and run tours of the place. One can find people claiming to live there, and there are fire safety reports. Microsoft Encarta even has a map. There's apparently enough to support an encyclopaedia article, with some research. Keep. Uncle G 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, all real named, inhabited places are notable. JIP | Talk 09:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. Punkmorten 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, any page with an entry in 4 other interwiki links is deemed notable in my book, --Dangherous 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, "all real named, inhabited places are notable." spot on...--Jirrupin 22:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. First, as to notability, I would say that all real, named, isolated human settlements are notable (I add "isolated" to JIP's criteria so as to exclude neighborhoods and such--by "isolated" I mean separate, not far away). If pressed (as I know I would be by Uncle G) to give a reason for my mere instinct, I think I'd say that real, named, isolated settlements are the basic political units in a society. Why that should be a reason for notability, I don't know. Just thinking out loud. Second, as to verifiability (which I believe is distinct from notability), the article is sourced, and as per Uncle G, there is reason to believe that there are even more sources out there. Pan Dan 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep real place. Also I agree with Pan Dan and disagree with Uncle G's unduly high standards for notability. Now if this place had a school, there'd be editors all over saying the school had notability while the town in which it stood may not. Ironic. Carlossuarez46 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Having something to write" based upon census reports, history books, studies, and "all kinds of other things" is not an "unduly high standard". You're not understanding what the standard actually is. You're also apparently unaware of the level of documentation that exists for most towns, villages, and (indeed) fjords. Please don't adopt blanket criteria in place of actually looking for sources. Uncle G 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- (Comment) I agree with Uncle G that both (1) having sources with nontrivial content and (2) notability, are necessary for keeping any WP article. I disagree with Uncle G that #1 automatically implies #2. They are distinct. Re: the subject of the article under discussion here, Uncle G has established #1 in his keep comment above, but #2 is established, I believe, simply by being a real, named, isolated settlement. Pan Dan 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Having something to write" based upon census reports, history books, studies, and "all kinds of other things" is not an "unduly high standard". You're not understanding what the standard actually is. You're also apparently unaware of the level of documentation that exists for most towns, villages, and (indeed) fjords. Please don't adopt blanket criteria in place of actually looking for sources. Uncle G 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_shops. Resolute 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep villages are notable. See the 17 bazillion articles on minor American settlements for precedent. Lankiveil 04:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC).
- Keep - it's a real, verifiable place, where .15% of the entire Faroese population lives. My village, home to .006% of the British population has an article. --Mnemeson 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It is useful (albeit slightly), and it has the potential for growth (albeit small for now). George J. Bendo 12:11, 8 October 2006 (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.
