Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedley, Saskatchewan

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 Snowy keep. —Gaff ταλκ 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sedley, Saskatchewan

Sedley, Saskatchewan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable town, with very little information in evidence with which to build a decent stub.

  • Delete - I've never really nominated something for deletion before, but this article isn't really up to standards. I tried doing a bit of research, and other than the fact that Sedley, Saskatchewan exists, and was named after a lawyer, I couldn't really find anything noteworthy. I tried cleaning it up a bit, but it's still in need of either a lot of work or a deletion. Although I do support the fact that Sedley is like....totally radical. =) Banpei 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Neutral - Frankly, I have nothing against the town, or with keeping it, but if you looked at the page back when i put the AFD nomination up, there wasn't much to go on. It was not accurate *or* referenced. Banpei 10:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree entirely -- without more information, it is unclear that this town is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't find a relevant Wikipedia policy/guideline on inclusion of towns, but I assume that there must be something of interest in order for the article to be included, however "totally radical" the town might be... -- Sjb90 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote keep towns, just as I vote keep stars and keep schools (at least public schools). I'm not sure what the WP guidelines are for notability on places, but this would be the place to go...—Gaff ταλκ 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Wikipedia precedent, all communities are notable. --Charlene 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps the nominator should have done 'a bit of research' into the very clear Wikipedia policy and precedent concerning communities. There's nothing wrong with a short article if it's accurate and referenced and I don't see the problem with this one. Nick mallory 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you point us towards this Wikipedia policy please, Nick? I also tried to find a policy on places, but failed miserably: the common outcomes page isn't policy so much as a summary, the Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest article was deleted as being covered by existing notability guidelines, and WP:NOTE states that there must be 'significant coverage' of a subject. If people believe that this article should be kept, that's clearly fine, but if there's a specific policy that states that all communities are notable, it'd be useful to have this bookmarked for future reference -- thanks! -- Sjb90 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: There is no explicit policy stating "All communities are notable," to be sure. WP:CON, however, is explicit policy, and the overwhelming and longstanding consensus is to that effect.  RGTraynor  13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if there wasn't clear precedent for keeping localities, this village is clearly notable. If there is nothing on Google, then all it means is someone needs to visit a library. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan, they should be able to help point someone in the right direction to find material. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 11:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, what exactly could make a populated place non-notable? Punkmorten 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - why not? There's strong precedent for including towns like this. YechielMan 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Populated places are by precedent notable and should be included. So long as it can be demonstrated this is an inhabited settlement and not just a neighborhood of some larger town, it should be kept. Arkyan • (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Populated places of this nature are notable, and as long as Wikipedia allows articles about urban neighbourhoods, articles about independent communities, no matter how minor, must also be allowed. 23skidoo 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep popoulated geographical locations are notable and should be kept. Davewild 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, please as per Charlene. Mumun 無文 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep real place=gets kept. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Common sense says a real town is notable. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
  • Keep All real locations are notable for inclusion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Piling on all real places, whether a major metropolitan area, or the tiniest village are notable. Resolute 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All towns are inherently notable. --Oakshade 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - all communities are notable. Otherwise, I'm not sure how we would ever come up with criteria to distinguish between notable and non-notable settlements. What a nightmare that would be. Skeezix1000 11:40, 30 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.