The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. --Barras (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communes (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Exert has asked that this page be deleted because:

Delete all the stubs. Most of these could be deleted under QDA2.

Please discuss this possible deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

• Keep Communes/Cities are inherently notable and can be further expanded. Because an article is missing information doesn't mean it should be deleted. Same reason we kept the towns in Manitoba last week. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For the French communes, I'll say delete on the basis that they cannot be expanded (the enWP versions are also of the same size). However, if Yottie manages to translate them from the French wiki, then they should be kept. For the other communes as well, a similar thing holds true. Check whether there is room for expansion, if no, then delete. However, as Djsasso says communes are more notable than rivers/asteroids. Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that the articles have merit and enough notability. They are certainly very likely to be helpful in regards to articles on history, geography, politics and biographies where these communes might be discussed and we would see redlinks instead. The existence of a stub in these locations would encourage the expansion of the stub when readers click on them for further information. I do think these stubs should not be orphaned and would also benefit the addition of ==Other pages== section with relevant links back to articles that link to them. fr33kman ^talk 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I really hate one-line stubs, but cities/towns/communes are inherently notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As are asteroids? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Notable, and there is room for expansion. It just needs to be done bit by bit. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike obscure rivers and asteroids, Communes, Towns, Villages etc are generally notable - and indeed all of these pages are. While I don't agree with their mass creation, I do agree that they warrant a place in the encyclopedia, and they should therefore be kept. Goblin 17:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
• Keep. We can still expand them.-- Tdxiang 04:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• These should be deleted, or converted into a list. Unless the town is notable by achievement, or third part publication. A small township in my state of 30 people would be notable by the above rationale. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, all verifiable locations are notable, regardless of their size or population. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic... my home is notable. There must be a line somewhere, yes? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're home isn't a defined city/town/village/commune, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does however have a verifiable physical street address. My post office does as well. The neighbourhood has a name, verifiable. See where I'm going? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, to be honest. An address is not the same as a city. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that a small city of 30, for example, is just a small group of people. Not really that notable. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The population is irrelevant. If a city is notable enough to be officially recognized by its country's respective government, it's notable enough to be included here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the fact that every single town/city/commune/village no matter the size will have been written about in reliable sources. Your house address will not have been. -Djsasso (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a hot topic. There are many French communes which are notable - beyond simply being communes, and currently short stubs. Lisieux has a very important Gothic church. This used to be a cathedral, but the bishop's seat was moved to Bayeux, which also has a very important Gothic-style cathedral. Limoux was first-mentioned in the year 844 - and may be the site where the first sparkling wine was produced (which is now called Champagne wine, if it comes from the Champagne). The big difference is that Limoux is all in the sunny south (Languedoc-Roussillon), while the Champagne is in the (mostly rainy) north. I haven't even mentioned Catharism yet, Limoux was quite central in Cathar lands.Saint-Émilion is an UNESCO World Heritage site; there are many early Gothic buildings, surrounded by world-class wineries, even though less than 3000 people live there. Those are just examples of French communes. I think before we start another mass deletion spree, we need to check the potential for each of these communes. Given the current number of editors we have, I don't think this is worth the effort; for the result of possibly deleting a few thousand of them. Rather than deleting them, we should look at how these articles can be extended. --Eptalon (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Juliancolton. This is a different case than, say, asteroids or rivers. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One line stubs that tell us nothing of the subject are basically useless. I think a blanket ban on mass creating of stubs would be a good idea to prevent this happening again. They are polluting the encyclopedia. Majorly talk 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's expand, not delete. The framework is now in place --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All the communes are notable. Stubs can be expanded, and will be in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a few years time? I think most of these stubs will be as they are now. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline; it's a perpetual work-in-progress, but eventually, every single article is bound to be expanded. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. With Wikipedia, there is no deadline, or limit to space. So making the argument that the articles are a waste of space or will be expanded only in the distant future don't make sense. Malinaccier (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is infinite space and time. But what good does an article do, if it provides next to no information on the subject? Exert 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, these shouldn't have been created as one-line stubs. However, they're sufficiently notable and suitable for an encyclopedia, so I've no problem with keeping them now that they're here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good they do, is that a drive by editor is more likely to expand an article than create one. So to have a one line stub we are more likely to grab the work/effort if only for a second of a drive by editor, where otherwise the article would still not exist. -Djsasso (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. I just feel we shouldn't be mass creating stubs. There are things that are more beneficial.Exert 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.