Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obesanes
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-valid information, unproven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwhick (talk • contribs)
- Delete hoax. Zero google hits, not found on any map. David | Talk 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain - check. --Blackwhick 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make the effort to check for yourself. Uncle G 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax - 0 googles. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain, don't delete - may not be hoax. --Blackwhickham 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already given us your opinion under your other user name, above, and in the nomination. Uncle G 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax (no Googles, doesn't appear on maps) or at least unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whether or not it's a hoax or if the place really exists, the article should be deleted because it's only one sentence. As B.Wind said recently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfly Caught page, "One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make." From one sentence, we cannot determine the notability of the place, or the truthfulness or accuracy of any statements. If the writer cannot bother to write more than one sentence, or doesn't have enough knowledge or material to write more than one sentence, it should be deleted. For reference, pick up any bound encyclopedia and look at the entry for any major city near you. GestaltG 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to you and B.Wind, a tiny village and a major city are hardly the same thing, and similarly Wikipedia and a bound encyclopedia are hardly the same thing. In the former case, a village will almost always have a tiny article compared to a major city; in the latter, bound encyclopedias only ever contain finished articles - Wikipedia always only contains articles in progress. As such, a one sentence stub may be the start of a future featured article and - as long as it contains some information (like a village's location) - should not automatically be considered for deletion on its size alone. In this particular case, however, neither Google nor Ordnance Survey have ever heard of Obesanes, so let's all be sane and delete it. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not quite what I meant. Even in bound encylopedia entries for what one might consider obscure towns that almost no one has ever heard of, there is generally some standard information that is missing here. I was concentrating on the lack of information, such as approximate population, local industry, local places of note, form of government and so forth, usually found in material that is considered "encyclopedic." Your point about bound encylopedias vs Wikipedia is well taken, however, I have written article stubs and when I have done so, it has at least been one paragraph, and more than one sentence. So, I think size does have to do with it, again, I would say that one sentence doesn't even make a stub, and one sentence weighs heavily in my mind against keeping the "article." GestaltG 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to you and B.Wind, a tiny village and a major city are hardly the same thing, and similarly Wikipedia and a bound encyclopedia are hardly the same thing. In the former case, a village will almost always have a tiny article compared to a major city; in the latter, bound encyclopedias only ever contain finished articles - Wikipedia always only contains articles in progress. As such, a one sentence stub may be the start of a future featured article and - as long as it contains some information (like a village's location) - should not automatically be considered for deletion on its size alone. In this particular case, however, neither Google nor Ordnance Survey have ever heard of Obesanes, so let's all be sane and delete it. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, completely unverifiable, likely hoax. - Phaedriel 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom TheRingess 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following Grutness. While a verifiable one-sentence stub should be allowed to survive and grow, this one seems to be a hoax: e.g. there is no Obesanes in the index of the AA Great Britain Road Atlas for 1978, and Morpeth is 14 miles from Newcastle-on-Tyne so a "village" can't be "close" to both of them. -- JimR 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - probable creation by User:Obesanes - only logical conclusion I can come to. --Sunfazer 15:48, 2 January 2006 (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.