Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swalwell, Alberta

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 to keep. This isn't going to go anywhere RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swalwell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. It's desolate areas have oil drilling, but this unincorporated area is otherwise without news/book and other reliable source coverage. Without independent reliable source material, there is nothing to add to the article that would meet Wikipedia's article standards. The topic is not notable. Delete and redirect to Hamlets of Alberta. -- Jreferee t/c 15:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - real place, appears on all maps and in all gazetteers. Wikipedia is not paper. An encyclopedia should cover all geographical placenames, even ones where nothing ever happens. --Qyd (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All real places are inherently notable, even if the lunatics at Wikipedia Review want to turn this article into a battleground. Resolute 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - why is this even up for AFD? if there are issues with content - deal with those. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - all real inhabited places are notable. No encyclopedia would omit geographical topics. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously. The reason cited for deletion is "insufficient amount of independent reliable source material", but an official government web site confirms the existence of the place, and if any particular details beyond existence are not sufficiently supported independently, the article can be edited accordingly without entirely deleting it as if the place doesn't exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hamlets of Alberta and protect the resulting redirect. Given the attention on the subject by the trolls at Wikipedia Review, if kept this article would need to be perpetually protected. Real inhabited places are not inherently notable - they are encyclopedic, but not inherently notable. There is no source material to state other than that this place exists; the only reliable source is simply the name "Swalwell" on a small list, with no information next to it. Searching only results in Wikipedia mirrors and random directory sites, with one or two small businesses. This article will never be expanded - better to just merge and leave a protected redirect. --Coredesat 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a real place is encyclopedic, per your argument, then why would this article require removal? Wikipedia is not paper, so removing a large collection of encyclopedic topics and merging them into one is really quite unnecessary. Also, the existence of trolls is not a valid merge reason, nor is the fact that this article will have to remain protected until the trolls move onto their next target. And this is only if you ignore the fact that it won't stop them. They will just start harrassing an editor at the Hamlets of Alberta article. Resolute 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting it be removed, I'm suggesting it be merged. A stub that will never be expanded is bad enough, but a permanently full-protected one that will never be expanded is even worse. --Coredesat 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and process note, the AFD tag was removed from the article on 25-NOV with a summary indicating that the AFD closed as a speedy keep... however it appears that the AFD was never closed and has been still running. I leave it up to whomever considers this whether or not they want to let it run a few extra days per this, but I do note that I personally don't think that would influence consensus at all.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's my fault, I forgot to restore the tag. --Coredesat 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh sorry, I see what happened... an admin removed the tag per this close because obviously that editor couldn't as the article is protected. I tend to agree that closure by someone who opined then immediately closed per that opinion isn't really valid.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have no problem with articles on every other inhabited place on Earth, so why in the world (or out of this world) should we do differently because of "the trolls on WR"? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dan T. I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedia Review might be mucking this article up for whatever reason, but verifiable geographic communities are inherently notable. WP sometimes merges neighborhoods into larger city articles; something like that might be appropriate here. If this really is a hamlet in the middle of nowhere, though, then it merits its own article. It is presumptuous to say that nothing will ever happen in this place; by long practice and convention, if a government or municipal authority recognizes the existence of a community, Wikipedia will not delete an article on it. Xoloz (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nobody disputes that it is a real place. That limited online sources exist today is totally irrelevant. Dead tree sources are likely to exist, and are generally superior to online sources. The local historical society for Kneehill County, Alberta or one of the nearby towns or cities is likely to have some. (And, if a merge occurs, it should be to the county article, as the next larger place including this one.) The article obviously can't go beyond the known sources. That it is located along the railroad track is a strong indicator that there will have been sources published about it in prior centuries; there usually were publications and disputes about where railroads would and wouldn't go. GRBerry 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per the above evidence regarding geographic communities' notability. Not even a close call. Why was it even nommed? Mr Which^??? 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the nomination. --Coredesat 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the nomination. It does not qualify for deletion per the cited reasons. Thus my question. And thus your brusque response. Mr Which^??? 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't be stupid Invalid nom to start. Keep and unprotect (quietly after a few days). Ban the trolls. There are more good wikipedia editors than trolls, right? So ask everyone to watchlist it. Use the wiki, believe in the wiki. A quiet and steady pattern of removing the problems will make them go away. Making all this big fuss stirs the pot and attracts them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Strong keep per above. Real place that is inherently encyclopedic. Graham87 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per all of the above. Let's not feed the trolls. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid existing place. We can deal with disruption.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:06, 29 November 2007 (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.