Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost, Scotland

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 keep, real village. Kusma (討論) 09:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost, Scotland

Lost, Scotland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete. Not notable (from the article: "population: less than two dozen" Johnsonsjohnson 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it is a small place does not mean it is not notable. Given that there is a BBC report on it, [1], it is real enough to keep. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What then makes it notable? The article does not state any notability. Surely it can't be the somewhat amusing name? Are there articles for every place in Australia where someone has stolen a sign with a kangaroo on it? (Or do people not steal such signs?) Johnsonsjohnson 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And if there are any reputable news reports on those places, we can talk about them getting an article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable towns of any size warrant their own articles. 23skidoo 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost is a village, not a town. Johnsonsjohnson 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Just about named location gets in, regardless of population size or fame. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. - Evv 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable, referenced, geographical location - therefore notable. Please feel free to point me to a policy, guideline or precedent that says otherwise. Yes, I think all cities/towns/villages/lakes/islands/etc with a verifiable gazetted name should have an article, stolen street signs or not. --Canley 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:NOTABILITY, Some topics are considered of inherent value for inclusion without the assertion of notability, such as cities, villages, lakes, rivers, and mountains. -- Whpq 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just thought I should point out that the nominator is campaigning heavily to have Lost (TV series) moved to Lost (currently a disambiguation page). See Talk:Lost (TV series), consensus was not reached in the discussion. This may be an unrelated notability concern (Assume good faith, Canley, assume good faith!), but this makes me highly skeptical of the motive behind this nomination. --Canley 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Agreed, this seems very much like borderline disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, trying to reduce the list of items on the Disambig page to make the move argument seem stronger. --Maelwys 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP is quite clear about all towns getting an article, no matter how obscure. wikipediatrix 18:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: verifiable and referenced, and being occasionally newsworthy doesn't hurt its cause. theProject 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NOTABILITY does make the unfortunate and regretable concession that somehow every backwater non-notable town which may be folded up tomorrow can have it's article. I'm going to cite Wikipedia: ignore all rules and suggest deletion. This rule about in WP:NOTABILITY that every hole on the planet can have an article is a bad thing, and for the benefit of Wikipedia should be ignored. •Elomis• 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - all cities are inherently notable, as WP:NOTABILITY says. Looks like this AfD is just to make a WP:POINT since he's trying to get the TV show Lost moved to Lost. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Towns are encyclopedic. Edison 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if only to piss of a Lost fan. Recury 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Some towns in Europe have been in existance longer than most countries. Leave it to be expanded by those in the know, especially as there are many other such articles on verifiable places on Wikipedia. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Real town. Per WP:AFDP, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." No need to go against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT). --Oakshade 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same reason that was written by Oakshade. --Dezidor 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: What the hell? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In an online encyclopedia where we don't have the kind of space limitations that traditional paper-book encyclopedias have, any place with a name is sufficiently notable to get an entry. --Serge 02:06, 22 November 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.