Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagarde-d'Apt

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The result was nomination withdrawn. —gorgan_almighty 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lagarde-d'Apt

Lagarde-d'Apt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It is a one line article that has existed since October 2006, and shows no sign of expanding. The subject matter probably doesn't comply with Wikipedia requirements on notability. The article was originally marked with {{prod}}, but the author objected so I brought it to AfD instead.

Nomination withdrawn, as original author has expanded article. gorgan_almighty 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • keep, cities, towns, villages, and any similar human settlements are generally considered notable, no matter how few people they have. Needs sources and expansion, but a quick google turns up interesting information that could easily let it grow [1] [2] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems I missunderstood the term "commune". Silly me. But I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, as I still feel that a community of only 26 people is not notable enough. I agree with what you said about cities, towns and villages, but I don't think it should be applied to French communes if they only have 26 inhabitants. —gorgan_almighty 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you read Communes of France, you'll see that all of france is divided into communes, and their specification is very clear, even the ones annihilated by the first world war are still defined to cover the same territory, even with no inhabitants. We've never deleted towns for being too small before, so I don't think this'll be any different. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Night Gyr. NawlinWiki 18:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - named geographic locations are virtually always notable and inhabited ones always are, especially one like this that may only have 30 inhabitants but is a local centre of the lavender industry. You won't win this one, gorgan_almighty, since AfD is not the place for a major rewrite of policy — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as inhabited place, no editor is to "think" whether it's big "enough". Greatly improved, too. Punkmorten 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I should point out that the article as nominated, while still a clear keep as a named town, was a lot stubbier than it is now — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep real place=gets kept, end of debate. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the objectives of WP:FR is to update all commune articles. This will happen in time. Kiwipete 01:45, 2 May 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.