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--JForget 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already speedily deleted once as not notable, but now reappeared. Still seems rather non-notable, so raised AfD Oscarthecat 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article reads kind of like an advert, but it's an actual settlement and looks like a well developed town on Google Maps [1]. Per above, all settlements are notable. --Oakshade 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per abov ffm 12:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real place, though there's not much left after I deleted the spammy parts. Clarityfiend 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since verifiable human settlements are notable. Why was it speedy deleted? Burntsauce 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can WP:AGF and see how somebody would think it was an ad for a resort. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People who shout AGF in deletion debates should be blo— Burntsauce 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only a settlement (and as such instantly meeting notability standards), but also - as I have now added - the home to a fairly prominent organisation. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. To quote WP:OUTCOMES, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." Bearian 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as soon as possible. The quote above says it all. Greenshed 19:40, 21 September 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.