User:Balloonman/afd/Vanderbilt, the Netherlands
AFD debate was closed after 38 minutes per WP:SNOW with the statement that all places, irrespective of anything else, are notable. I'd agree if we were talking a larger village or a town, but the place is a hamlet with an apparent population of 54 with no reliable sources cited and no significance given - this place seems less notable than my street. I believe this should go through a full AFD and that the speedy keep was incorrect. -Halo (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: As I said on your talk page, arguing that a recognised settlement is not notable will not get you anywhere. If you want to argue that it is not a recognised settlement, feel free to take it back to AfD with my blessings, but no one was arguing that in the original AfD. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reopen AFD, no AFD, unless it's a blatant bad faith nomination, should be closed within 38 minutes of it opening, regardless of the circumstances. No one argued that it was not a recognized settlement because no one had the chance to do so. --Coredesat 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reopen the AFD. I agree strongly with Coredesat that speedy-closes should be very tightly limited. This was clearly inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Closure. The nomination was for a "non-notable location". Geographical locations have long been considered to be notable, regardless of their size. Therefore, the speedy keep. I see no reason to re-open this when the result will be exactly the same with some more keeps piled on. If there is a different reason to want a deletion (the nom thinks it may be a hoax, for example), then it can be listed in another AFD. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the closure of this particular AFD. What does concern me, though, is that the village of Vanderbilt doesn't exist. There is a town in the Netherlands called De Bilt, several Dutch Americans are called Vanderbilt, but there is no town, city, village or hamlet in the Netherlands called Vanderbilt, whether on the island of Texel or elsewhere. This article should be deleted as a hoax, regardless of the AFD. AecisBrievenbus 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether this discussion results in a "endorse" or "overturn" result, the article will go back to afd anyway. In the case of the former result, it will be nominated for deletion again as non-existent, and in case of the latter result, the afd will be reopened, with combined concerns of notability and existence. Is this deletion review, to decide whether the closure was correct, worth having, while an article on a possibly non-existent place remains? Or shall we call this discussion moot and reopen the afd right away - since that's the effective outcome either way? I'm in favor of closing this as moot unless anyone really wants to see the discussion through to the end. Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy reopen AfD - whatever the merits of this article it is incontrovertable that this AfD was wrongly closed out of process. BlueValour (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re-list on AfD as a hoax/error/non-existent place, re-opening the original AfD will just muddy the waters needlessly (as any nomination of a geographical location for deletion as non-notable is going to be speedy kept, precedent is extremely well established). --Stormie (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re-list AFD obviously the debate was not non-controversial. Wider input is required to determine concensus. JERRY talk contribs 03:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Closure was premature, 38 minutes is not long enough for consensus to be demonstrated. And besides, new arguments like non-existence might crop up. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reopen / relist with an explanation there is concern the place doesn't exist. Addhoc (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)