Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demqog

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. John254 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demqog

Not really notable - inclusion in an exhaustive list of similar places doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Rambutan (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All geographical locations have encyclopedic value haowever stubbed. These new articles are no different to many of the stubs started in Germany or wherever. It has info on locations altitude and population size and locations on the world map. I am trying my best to rid of systematic bias on wikipedia and fill in gaps in knowledge from a country hardly covered on wikipedia but I am being disrupted from doing so. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep. Communities are generally notable - I grew up in an American village of about 100 people, which has a multi-paragraph Wikipedia article, as do virtually all communities in the Anglosphere. No reason to discriminate because this is a village in Tibet. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anti-Tibetan discrimination was to do with this? More importantly, who said that communities are notable? If it doesn't satisfy WP:NOTE - which it doesn't - then it's not notable, easy as that.--Rambutan (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops, which says "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". I recommend withdrawing the nom. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for finding that one :) Melsaran (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep, inhabited villages are always notable, regardless of population. I'm sure there's some guideline on this – just can't find it right now. Melsaran (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment According to several adminstrators I've come across in the past evey locality has encyclopedic value providing it has some basic facts. This has locator map and basic geogrpahical info and is certainly no worse than many hundreds of stubs on small places that are started daily. But Tibet in particular has extrmeely low coverage on wikipedia and I'm trying my best to counteract systematic bias by covering the world more evenly. There no reason why these places can't develop into fuller articles in future. You'd be amazed how similar stubs I started some time ago on seemingly obscure places have developed fully ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All towns are notable regardless of size. WP:NOTE does have provisions for exceptions and consensus has shown very strongly (see WP:OUTCOMES) that population centers is one them. --Oakshade 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above—notability guidelines do not apply to geographic locations.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that all towns - even hamlets - have inherent notability provided the existence of WP:RS. Eusebeus 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles like this shouldn't even be nominated for deletion, unless they are fake. Polaralex 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Dêmqog, which is the official spelling. There are actually at least two places with that name, so there has to be a disambiguation. I suggest Dêmqog (Ngari) and Dêmqog (Nyingchi). —Babelfisch 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominator provides no reason why it isn't notable. John Vandenberg 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any real location is notable in it's own right (which can't be challenged for the same reason that we don't delete high schools-one gets deleted and there's a mad rush of noms). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:27, 13 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.