Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chima (town)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 Wikipedia:Notability_(geography). SeanMD80talk | contribs 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chima (town) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No article, no sources, non-notable —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Improve. I'm pretty sure sources are out there. Acebulf (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you should try to actually find a source. without sources, this article is violating several wikipedia policies like verifiability and no original research as well as guidelines like notability. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it is "a town and municipality"--Caspian blue 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - long precedent states that legally recognized population centres are inherently notable, and a google search [1] backs up that it does in fact exist. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well, notability requires significant coverage. that's a lot more than just a low-quality source that confirms only the existence. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually "...to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." (from wp:n) With legally recognized population centres there is the assumption that it is mentioned in the country's legal and census records, within the country in question. Colombia you have to admit, does not have as highly digitized records as much of the First World. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing verifiability and notability. Are there reliable sources proving it is (or was) a populated place, recognized as such by the government, shown on maps, included in census lists, written up in geography or history books? Give us something encyclopedic or remove it. Also it appears to be a hoax: why would a town in Colombia have a name in a language from Nigeria? Was there some great Nigerian conquest of South America the history books forgot to mention? Edison (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't believe for one minute that people are doubting the existence of this town! Just google it, not really hard to do. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no reason that we should treat this differently from other communities. We don't require communities to have census listings, by the way. As far as the Nigerian thing: it appears to be a coincidence, so I've removed that bit entirely. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Verified population center. Towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. Being a one-sentence stub is not grounds for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep - its Verifiable in Reliable Sources. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's generally been held that all communities are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A lot of people seem to have this idea that all populated places are inherently notable (don't have to provide sources that prove notability). Where does this idea come from? Certainly not WP:N! —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's always been held to be the case on AfD debates. And as I've said over and over again, you can't "prove" notability. Notability is always subjective. The problem with "proving" notability with populated places is that places outside the developed world would be discriminated against because internet sources are less likely to mention them. That then biases Wikipedia towards the developed world, which is rightly considered to be wrong. Thus, we have always considered that if a place is a genuine community (i.e. more than the odd house) then we should have an article on it. Since Chima is a municipality, it quite clearly falls into this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N gives a clear objective rule for how to determine notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Do you think that this article meets this rule? —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer you to WP:IAR! That definitely applies to communities and has been so held in previous AfDs. Wikipedia is about providing information readers might want to find, not obsessively following a series of bureaucratic procedures. Think: might a reader want to find information on a town which has municipality status and is shown on the map? Answer: yes. Think: can this article be expanded at some time in the future by someone who is prepared to do some research? Answer: yes. It therefore meets notability guidelines to my satisfaction. And obviously to the satisfaction of the majority of people who have contributed to this debate thus far. Try not to be too hidebound by guidelines - they are not the be all and end all of Wikipedia. That's why they're called guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i'm not being "hidebound" by the rules. the fact is, this article hasn't only not presented significant coverage by reliable and independent sources, it hasn't presented significant coverage by unreliable or dependent sources. The only thing that has been presented is insignificant coverage (a dot on a map) by semi-reliable sources with unknown independance. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 13:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Places has already been bought up here, probably worth another read. Wikipedia:Notability_(geography) is also worth a read. Its worth pointing out that there is now no longer any dispute that the place exists, so I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i'm not being "hidebound" by the rules. the fact is, this article hasn't only not presented significant coverage by reliable and independent sources, it hasn't presented significant coverage by unreliable or dependent sources. The only thing that has been presented is insignificant coverage (a dot on a map) by semi-reliable sources with unknown independance. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 13:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer you to WP:IAR! That definitely applies to communities and has been so held in previous AfDs. Wikipedia is about providing information readers might want to find, not obsessively following a series of bureaucratic procedures. Think: might a reader want to find information on a town which has municipality status and is shown on the map? Answer: yes. Think: can this article be expanded at some time in the future by someone who is prepared to do some research? Answer: yes. It therefore meets notability guidelines to my satisfaction. And obviously to the satisfaction of the majority of people who have contributed to this debate thus far. Try not to be too hidebound by guidelines - they are not the be all and end all of Wikipedia. That's why they're called guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.