Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norris, Illinois

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 09:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norris, Illinois[edit]

According to the 2000 US Census, it had 194 people living in this town. How is this notable? I think it should be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can remember people having this debate before, and the result (which I agree with) is always to keep. I'm not prepared to sludge through months of pump archives, but rest assured this won't gain consensus. Sorry. Best, Meelar (talk) 05:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places. See List of places with fewer than ten people. Hi, TBSDY, welcome back. RickK 05:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Great to see you again, TBSDY. I'm with most Wikipedians voting keep on real places, though. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 05:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places with community of interest. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All real places have great potential for expansion. Unlike fancruft, for which we only know what the fiction is willing to tell us and what we can reasonably deduce from that, any real place has an expansive history that can be unearthed through personal observation and research and hundreds of potential contributors with firsthand experience of the topic. Take, for example, Lincoln Park, Michigan, a little suburb of Detroit I stayed in once. Until recently this was pretty much just a Rambot page, but then someone added some interesting local news stories and a history including Chief Pontiac's attack on Fort Detroit. I know these pages develop slowly, but give them time! Deco 05:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have thought that the encyclopedic nature of a real town would be obvious. Quale 05:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All cities and towns are noteworthy, regardless of their populations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all cities, towns, villages, hamlets, boroughs, postal locations, and census-registered mobile home parks. Gazpacho 06:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cburnett 06:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 07:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real places are encyclopedic. Let's not undo Rambot's work. Mgm|(talk) 09:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, absolutely clear precedent. Samaritan 12:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been fought out many times before -- see the history of the Rambot articles. --Carnildo 20:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Named places with census statistics, especially incorporated communities, are per se notable, because they impact more than just residents, and information about them is easily verifiable in a manner that other subjects that only 194 people may have direct, regular contact with are not. Every incorporated community, no matter how small, has lawmaking powers that greatly affect residents, people who work there, businesses there, and people who even just pass through. Postdlf 20:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Like all articles edited exclusively by Rambot, this is a complete mess, but deleting it isn't the way to resolve this. JYolkowski // talk 21:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah! What a useless waste of time to see something like this with such overwhelming support in VfD. Keep, obviously. older≠wiser 00:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Just because a town only has a couple hundred people that doesn't make it any less worthy of an article. 23skidoo 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons cited by Postdlf. Most of the noises about "precedent" (yes, I've read the appropriate page's section on this) don't give an actual reason whenever someone nominates a small-town or Southern-Hemisphere-city article for deletion. Some of the template voters don't sound like they could give a reason if you asked. Barno 02:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is disappointing to see a timewasting nomination which was certain to be defeated from an experienced user. Oliver Chettle 02:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, precedent. I've been there too. K1Bond007 15:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I think every community should have a page of their own.--Sultan Q. Khan 21:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it is a real town after all Yuckfoo 23:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - all legally official locations should be chronicled. Kingturtle 06:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I just spent the better part of three hours looking up any information on Norris...and was hard-pressed to find anything to add. I *did* however, find three people who claimed to actually *be* from Norris..which might just prove it exists. So, like the otheres, keep all real places. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norris,_Illinois&oldid=1144091130"