Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango

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 delete all. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Coeur Saignant Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commune Ango

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable. However, it has been a while since I have been involved in a debate on that matter and consensus may have changed. Thanks for your input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

Comment The first appears to exist and I think that provides inherent notability as that consensus has not changed as far as I'm aware. The latter gets a lot of false positives, something philosophical? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep All~~ - Consensus has not changed on the inherent notability of towns/villages/population centers (I can't imagine it ever changing). All appear to exist. [1][2][3][4] --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now based on Thierry Caro's comments. I would like to scrutinize available sources on these places, but I don't know if i will get around to that. There just seems to be too many unknowns with these. --Oakshade (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all as definitely verifiable communities. This isn't the place to attempt to change an established consensus anyway. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not communities or villages. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, guys. I am from Réunion. I was born there. I lived there until I was 17. Then came back in 2004. Stayed there until 2007. I am Reunionese. I speak the local creole. I love that place. And I am an admin on the French Wikipedia. I have created the French Mascarene Portal. I have written three good articles and one featured article about my island. All in all, I have initiated about 1000 pages about Réunion there. Today I started eight. Thus, I would be very pleased if there was many articles about it in the English Wikipedia. I would love to see a complete portal dedicated to it here. Yet, I have to maintain that all this stuff listed up there should be deleted as soon as possible. The source AlbertHerring said he used to create these pages is erroneous. Biruitorul told him. I told him, and he eventually said that he would back up a deletion request. What more is required to make you understand that we are talking about tiny groups of houses with no more than a few families − if only they do exist? All the pages that show up on Google are from automated databases set to provide a commercial link related to any square meter on Earth. Nobody with local knowledge wrote them. They cannot be trusted, indeed. There are many mistakes inside. And inventions. Inventions that it would be insane to rely on, unless you are unwillingly wirting Encarta from the antipods. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect (it sounds like you know a lot about this) without a RS showing that it doesn't exist, the large number of RS saying it does wins... Hobit (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clearly not reliable on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than one person saying that, how can you know that? A web search turns up a large number of references to some of the places involved. Not saying the might not be wrong copies of bad data, but they are reliable sources (google maps for example). They might be wrong, but there needs to be some way to show it. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the only way to do it is to look at the Google maps satellite pics and that is indeed WP:OR. Nevertheless, I suggest WP:IAR: The sources, commercial data scrapers which all picked up the same clumsy data dump years ago, are wrong, these are not villages or communities. However, if consensus at en.Wikipedia is such that any farm on the planet which happens to have a postal name rates an article here, then so it'll be. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is OR. I mean looking at a map is consulting a RS, at least in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have never settled this question. the nearest I can recall is that on the UK Ordinance Survey maps, where names are often assigned to individual farms, are agreed to be deleted. if that can be clearly shown to be the case, by the total absence from gazetteers, etc., and an inspection of the map is relevant if it is obvious, just like the inspection of any other source. But if it is a collection of dwellings amounting to a hamlet, I think it is relevant as a place. This may need a more general discussion with time beyond the 5 days. I'm not sure about the postal address criterion, because the UK postal service certainly did, and perhaps still does, deliver to named houses if the name is known. And what about a traditional country estate, where several dependent families live in dependent separate houses in addition to the main one--is that a place? DGG (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE;^[5] by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (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.