Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilton Beach, Ontario

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980^{My RfA} 22:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hilton Beach, Ontario

This article is obviously about a city with no historical or social significance. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and this article does not belong. It is also not significant enough to merit merging into another article. Neutral point of view is not maintained in this article. will381796 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The place exists, it's not just a housing development or anything. BTW, the page really needs some work. If I'm missing some locality notability guidelines, i'll reconsider. --CastAStone 00:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't "keep all real places", as shown by the various featureless rocks in the sea that have come to AFD (and the fact that my back garden still doesn't have an article), but we do tend to employ the rationale outlined by Capitalistroadster below. See the User:Rambot discussions as well. Uncle G 00:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. With that as the basic guideline, my vote remains the same. --CastAStone 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as real place with real communities of interest see website [1]. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real communities. CalJW 00:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's not so much whether or not this is a real community. It's whether or not the encyclopedia gains anything from this article. I could write an article about every tiny town in West Texas, but that doesn't mean that I should. If an article's topic is not important in some way, then why keep a stub when you can go pick up an atlas and get more information. If someone has some more information regarding this place, then please, add more information. But the main thing is that Wikipedia has a policy to not let the articles turn into tourist guides, and that is exactly what this is. will381796 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you feel it is a tourist guide, change the content, not the existance. --CastAStone 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • (For the nominator) Please see my note on your talk page. Thanks.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• KeepReal Place Newbie Mistake Will Cleanup--JAranda | yeah 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The encyclopedic reason for articles about named places, at least at the level of recognized communities (towns and cities) is to identify, locate, and disambiguate them from similarly-named places or things. It's not a tourist guide, but functions more like a gazetteer. (To which someone will undoubtedly reply, Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, but that argument has not yet, to my knowledge, been asserted as policy.) MCB 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It needs cleanup, but towns are notable. --Sean Jelly Baby? 01:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just Cleaned it Up Just looking for a way to expand this and thats it --JAranda | yeah 01:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see that my attempt to have this article deleted was unwarranted, due to Wiki Precedent. Sorry. will381796 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• I am changing my vote to Speedy Keep as per comment directly above, posted by nominator. --CastAStone 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I'm with CastAStone on this one--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is an incorporated village. Which one of the editors who voted 'clean-up' above will actually clean it up? --maclean25 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per CastAStone. -- Spinboy 02:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm down with the keep crew. It may not be explicitly written out as policy, but the established VfD precedent is that real incorporated communities merit articles regardless of size. Bearcat 02:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs to be destubified, but I worry that setting the precendent of deleting city/town articles for being nn is going to open up a huge can of worms, and lead to a lot of unneccessary and ultimately damaging arguing over what towns are and are not encyclopedia-worthy. – Seancdaug 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all communities. Xoloz 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real towns and villages. That has been community consensus even the most ardent deletionists I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Municipalities are bread and butter. Marskell 09:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. utcursch | talk 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per established consensus... at least it isn't an elementary school.--Isotope23 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Jord 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - You can never have enough keeps for an incorporated village. --rob 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep this of course can we speedy keep it instead it does not need to be on here really Yuckfoo 18:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and de-list. Punkmorten 20:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. It's wiki precedent to have entries for cities and towns, and none of the arguments above convince me that this should change. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What makes an incorporated village of 220 people any less valid then a town of 5000 people or a city of a million people. --Cloveious 15:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.