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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge, Robertson County, Texas[edit]

Ridge, Robertson County, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable unincorporated community. Its article is nothing but a one line statement that gives no more information than Bryan-College Station metropolitan area's listing it as an unincorporated community does. WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason for having an article. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Like any other community"). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place is notable. Nomination of these is disruptive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to an actual official guideline or policy stating that any place that exists is notable. Nothing in WP:N states that, which is the only actual guideline for places. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a pretty strong precedent that all communities, including unincorporated communities, are considered notable. Like most unincorporated communities, sources do exist for this one; for example, The Handbook of Texas, which states that Ridge once had a post office and was the site of a railway switch, both signs of a significant unincorporated community. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please point to actual consensus based notability guidelines, not "precedence" as other communities have been deleted before. Also, the Handbook of Texas is not really a third party source, its a state reference that includes pretty much everything under the sun, including other people/places/topics that are not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places; "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source" (in this case, the GNIS and the Handbook of Texas). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a city nor a village. Nor does that, in and of itself, prevent any such places from being AfD nor is it really a valid reason to oppose by itself considering everything it points to are personal essays and dead proposals, not actual valid guidelines. As that page itself says, consensus can change and "Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AfD is disputed at best, as there can be conflicts with extant policies or guidelines" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the US doesn't have villages. Your nomination notice to me says: "Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised". If, as you contend, the place is not notable, no amount of improvement could address that issues. Both the USGS and the USPS (which assigns the place a ZIP Code) think the place is sufficiently notable, what evidence do you have short of your unsupported allegation that the place is NOT notable and why should we believe you over official US government sources? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to disprove notability, one has to prove it. And it seems clear that no one is actually capable of doing it as thus far every keep argument is purely versions of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" and falsely claiming that old "precedents" are good enough to trump actual guidelines and policies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep because it's a place that's big enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). - Dravecky (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, contrary to your arguments, there's every reason to trust precedent when there's nothing different between this article and ones that have been kept before. Anyway, what's wrong with the Handbook? So what if it includes topics that aren't notable? It's a detailed treatment (from a university, too) of various Texas topics, and its coverage of Ridge is a great example of in-depth coverage from an independent source. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to trust a dated precedent that has not been updated in a long time and that, it self, clearly indicates it should NOT be used as a "keep" argument in a deletion debate by itself. The Handbook of Texas is a reliable source but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be its mirror, clearly violating WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a verifiable place and thus notable. Tavix |  Talk  20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ditto. To do a considerable number when you know they haven't a chance is clearly POINTY DGG (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A considerable number"? And again you are throwing out bad-faith accusations and remarks. Its a related group of articles that were all being added to the same article. Nothing more. And sorry, but I thought people actually still followed WP:N in AfD discussions rather than some claimed "precedence" with no actual backing by any guideline or policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A sourced article about a verifiably real settlement meets my standard for inclusion, and this article goes further than that by demonstrating significant coverage in at least one reliable source Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everyone but nominator. Article is well-sourced, and long-standing concensus is that all real places are notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:RS standards. The nominator may wish to consider withdrawing this AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all except nom. Passes WP:N. Towns/population centers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 14:57, 4 July 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.