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 delete. While the DFBot summary has this AfD listed under no consensus (50%), the two keep and one weak keep votes seem to provide little to no support for their arguments, other than noting that there are stubs just as bad as this one in Wikipedia. Delete arguments on the other hand provide strong support, and the sudden waivering of former "keep" voters to neutral or delete suggests to me a deletion consensus. Ultimately, there's nothing in this article really worth saving and no one with enough knowledge or ability to research the topic to approve it. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achargary[edit]

Achargary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod tag was removed but no information on notability was added to the article. Google search revealed nothing notable about location. Fails WP:N. (see below, I changed my stance to neutral upon learning about precedent in this area) janejellyroll 07:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed to neutral) - as a town, seems fairly notable to me. See WP:LOCAL. Has its own noticeboard on bbc: [1]. I realize it doesn't usually go this way, but can you prove it's small enough to not be notable? Part Deux 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you pointing me to that guideline. However, I think this part of it actually strengthens the case for deletion: While some demographic or directory-type information is essential to provide context about the place, it tends to make for a dry article if that's all the article contains. If the only verifiable information is along these lines, you probably shouldn't create a new article specifically about the place. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. This article provides no information besides location. If information can be found about a landmark or battlefield or "(random famous person) slept here," then I can understand how the "places of local interest" guideline might apply. janejellyroll 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--If it is Wikipedia policy that a town is automatically notable, then I will change to a keep. I searched for a policy on towns and couldn't find one--I'm probably just overlooking it. janejellyroll 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. However, it is a stub, and it is probably expandable. Part Deux 08:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; I'd say that the thousands of auto-generated stubs from USA census data have kind of set a precedent about the notability of towns. It could probably at least be improved to add population info and more detailed information about its location. Krimpet 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Given that a precedent has been set, I don't see the point in deleting this particular article. I apologize for my ignorance in this particular area. This is the first town-stub I'd come across. janejellyroll 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What is it? The article states it is a location. A location? Is it a town, a hill, a mountain, a valley? Because towns (no matter who small), and geographic features are notable and should have an article. -- Whpq 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Gruntness' reseach. It's not a town or geographic feature. As an archeological site, it doesn't appear to have attracted enough attention to provide reliable sources. -- Whpq 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, assuming this is a town and not just some mile-marker. (It seems to have its own postcode, KW11.) Janejellyroll, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities and shops, which shows historical consensus at AFD on certain topics (but is not policy). --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. janejellyroll 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The coordinates given are wrong (I'm about to change them - but even my finest-grained UK map doesn't show this place - and in the Highlands it shows things down to farms. Though I hate to say delete about a real place, this one looks to be infinitesimally important, so... Grutness...wha? 07:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there seems to be dispute on whether this place actually exists. The coordinates are wrong and the map shows nothing, but there is a post code? Can someone clear this up? If it's just a mile marker or a nickname for a crossroads with a gas station, it probably doesn't warrant an article. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad about the coordinates - I misread the decimals as minutes of arc, which put the place off the north coast of Scotland. It does exist - at least, it is mentioned as existing on quite a number of websites - most notably here, and the coordinates check with those at Rootsweb's location page, which is usually pretty accurate. But it doesn't show up on my trusty atlas, which usually means - as i said - that a place is so infinitesimal as to not be worth mentioning. When you consider that the same map shows that the road between Skail and Rhifail contains two hunting lodges and - a little further south - a farm which is at the site of a former village (population <20), but doesn't show Achargary, I think it gives some indication of its likely size. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - nb - I've found the coordinates on the UK locator are usually wrong. --MacRusgail 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote changed to Delete per Grutness and this, which seems to incidate it's a scheduled archaeological site because of a cairn. As there is nothing else confirming residence, I think this has little significance. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 3 February 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.