Wikipedia talk:Notability (populated places) (failed) 1

Previous discussion

This was drafted as part of this discussion at the Village pump. Please read it before adding comments here or making changes.

Moved out of RfC discussion.

Instead of bolding words as if we would miss them in plain text why don't you "read" that Village Pump discussion again and tell how how you come to the conclusion that there was anything remotely like a consensus in favour of creating a new guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I drafted this proposal to try and capture the "Chekpoint" section, to which no-one opposed. I have now listed it as a proposal, so it can be extended and polished under greater community scrutiny. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But the you summary in the checkpoint section was a complete misrepresentation of the previous discussion. Consensus was already against a new guideline before you made that checkpoint. Editors in general have limited time, so shouldn't be expected to repeat their statements just because you decided on a checkpoint. Taking all opinions into account there was a clear consensus in favour of the status quo and getting on with writing an encyclopedia rather than creating and discussing a proposed guideline that was bound to fail. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to sink to the level of giving a blow-by-blow commentary of the previous discussion, but if you feel it's necessary then I will.

RE the AfD. If you read the comments, rather than counting votes, I don't think my merge is in any way subversive. The AfD got snowed by people citing this strange "all places are inherently notable" dogma without any reasoning, before any real discussion could get underway. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that an AfD was closed incorrectly then the thing to do is to discuss it with the closing administrator and then, if you are still not satisfied, take it to deletion review, not to unilaterally overturn it. I wish people wouldn't close AfDs early, but this one had been running for nearly four days and had an obvious consensus for keeping. You seem to to be very keen on making rules, but not on following them. You didn't even do a merge: you put one out-of-context fact into another article that leaves any reader looking for information on Astley Cross totally unilluminated. And even after today's edit-warring reversion you made it far more difficult for any reader to actually get any information. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a deletion review is appropriate as I have been convinced that the page should not be deleted and Merge is not currently an available outcome for an AfD. There was only one fact on the original page. No other content. What more is possible from a merge? A search for Astley Cross would now take you to the Astley page, providing far more information (the Astley Cross article didn't even mention that it was in the parish of Astley), including all that was on the original Astley Cross page. Please stop making accusations of bad faith on my part. OrangeDog (talk • edits)

Digest

MSJapan expresses concern over practice of creating an article for every place that exists, rather than those that are notable.

Tagishsimon links to previous unresolved discussion.

A confused and curious OrangeDog arrives, fresh from an AfD, asking for the reasoning behind "populated places are inherently notable".

UncleG explains, linking to his essay. The assumption remains that places will be, "by their very natures" notable. New concepts: The fact of an article currently being a stub is irrelevant; Wikipedia should contain as many places as it can.

OrangeDog points out the previously mentioned difference between existence and notability. New concept: some sources verify existence, without constituting significant coverage.

JulesH presents a definition of notability. Questions why places shouldn't be included.

DGG agrees with UncleG and JulesH. Points out difficulty in deciding notability. States that because "almost all" are notable then we should assume that all are. States that all encyclopaediae contain listings of places. No reasoning is given for judgement of "almost all".

Snigbrook states that because a place exists it is likely to be notable (no reason given). Points out lack of legal problems for places compared with companies and people. Comments on MSJapan's reason for starting the discussion.

OrangeDog agrees with JulesH's definition. Points out that no-one has provided a reason that all places can be judged notable because some are (used by DGG and Snigbrook and to a lesser extent by UncleG and JulesH). Provides existence vs. notable analogy using 2^19. Attempts to focus people on the question of notability as defined by WP:N. Agrees that the stub issue is irrelevant. Points out the flaw in Snigbrook's statistics. Presents WP:DIRECTORY as a reason why current practice is bad.

A Man In Black introduces new concept: Places for which no coverage exists should be upmerged.

OrangeDog again points out that no-one has provided any reason why notability should automatically extend to every settlement in the world. Presents a challenge that he suspects will be possible (currently still unachieved).

A Man In Black claims that the "vast majority" of places are notable. Supports "aggressive merging of minor hamlets and such".

Dcoetzee believes towns to be inherently notable. Points out the flaw in previously discredited statistics.

OrangeDog again asks why these arguments can extent to every settlement that exists. Points out that he never supported using those statistics in a serious fashion.

A Man In Black points out Dcoetzee's lack of an argument.

Dcoetzee revises his argument to deal with inclusion rather than notability. Agrees that all extant places should be included.

Reyk strongly disagrees with inherent notability. Argues that articles shouldn't exist if there is no content for them. Points out that there is no time limit.

Pfly agrees with Reyk.

DCmacnut details his work with some notable places. Points out that once notable = always notable.

OrangeDog creates an informal checkpoint to allow focussed progression of the discussion:

1. An assumption that OrangeDog held, gained from GCSE Geography. This seriously weakens the value of arguments using quantifications "most", "almost all", "just 20%", "vast majority", "rare", etc. used by DGG, Snigbrook, A Man In Black and possibly in other's assumptions.
2. Taken from policy: What Wikipedia is not
3. Taken from policy: Verifiability
4. Not a single person in the discussion has disagreed that some places are notable. Wording is developed from previous comment by OrangeDog that has not been challenged.
5. Taken from guideline: Stub. Backed up by UncleG and others.

Presents some possible conclusions and solutions.

Dcoetzee suggests local government as a threshold for doubt.

Pfly agrees that population is insufficient.

OrangeDog drafts a guideline in good faith that contains nothing that has been disagreed with in this discussion.

Crickel points out difficulty of global application. Agrees that coordinates and population do not constitute notability.

In summary:

• MSJapan and OrangeDog have suggested a possible need for a guideline, no other user has disagreed.
• Everyone agrees that the stub issue is irrelevant and should not form further part of the discussion.
• Not a single person advocates restricting the inclusion of places in Wikipedia (nor does the guideline).

If you disagree with this interpretation, then please provide some direct evidence.

• Note. The unsigned digest above is a personal interpretation provided by User:OrangeDog. The direct evidence that the statement, "MSJapan and OrangeDog have suggested a possible need for a guideline, no other user has disagreed", is incorrect is in the village pump discussion - plenty of people disagreed with this before the "informal checkpoint" was made. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies that I forgot to sign it. Can you provide textual evidence of anyone saying that there is definitely no need for a guideline. Really this is a moot point, as it's been written and people are discussing it here. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The textual evidence that there is no need for a guideline is in most of the comments in the Village Pump discussion before you decided on a checkpoint. The majority of participants said that the current practice of accepting articles on all verifiable populated settlements should be continued, and, before you say "it's not a vote", everyone, on both sides, made substantial arguments in support of their positions, so all of the opinions should be taken into consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific examples saying that there shouldn't be a guideline? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Guideline proposal

Template:RFCpolicy I think this could become a useful guideline that could help clear up a number of disputes. Thoughts? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The correct guideline is the present one, that all verifiable populated places with a jurisdictional or distinct geographic identity are notable, or whatever word you want to use a word to mean appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. They serve as the skeleton of future articles, because they're ideal for new-comers. As for the objections

giving the population of a place is not indiscriminate information. Saying "among the inhabitants of X, is John Smith", that's indiscriminate information.

WP is not a directory has a logical exception here. Encyclopedias have always contained detailed atlases and gazeteers.

Stub is inapplicable, because these articles always do meet the present inclusion guideline for them. And if one believes in the sacred nature of the GNG, it does turn out there is always secondary information; its just a matter of finding it.

Of course they could be included in another article, but the general merging of minor articles, tho desirable, would be such a major change in the encyclopedia that it would require very general consensus. I'll probably support it, if it looks like it has a chance.

There is a real very general issue: just because one does not like this class of articles, that does not mean they hurt the encyclopedia. If you never look at them, they won't bother you. They don't even slow down the system. There are lots of things I'd rather weren't here at all, and lots of things I would rather not have separate articles for. But if they do, why should it bother me? What does bother me, and I think bothers people who use Wikipedia , is not the out-of-the-way information it contains, but the poor writing, inaccuracy, and out-of-date nature of most of the important articles, and the extremely sloppy sourcing and pervasive spam. Let's work on that, and leave alone what doesn't matter. Thee are tens of thousands of articles on small cities that need work. There are tens of thousands of articles on historic monuments that have not yet been written. There's enough to do in this area without having to remove things. Unlike paper, there is no virtue in getting minor material out of the way. DGG (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposer says above that this would "help clear up a number of disputes". What disputes? Afds for articles on verified settlements are amongst the least disputed - in general they are almost unanimously kept with most comments being that they are suitable for inclusion purely by the fact that they are populated places, not by matching them against some long bureaucratic list of criteria. Some recent examples are [1][2][3]. Guidelines are supposed to reflect practice, not change it, so if we are to have any guideline at all it should simply say "verified populated places are notable". The whole idea of this proposal is unnecessary instruction creep. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. People might want to look up information about quite minor places: why should we decree that they can't? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - ahistorical and recentist. The quest for information on forgotten hamlets and villages is never-ending. I, too, feel that we're better off fighting the excess of spam, fancruft and illiterate writing, rather than opposing the recording of places that long precede our arrivals on this crowded planet. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification: This proposal does not aim to prevent the inclusion of places or to prevent people looking up information about anywhere that exists - this information should always be included in Wikipedia. It is simply trying to prevent the creation of separate articles about places that do not meet notability guidelines. Articles which can never be expanded beyond simple location and population data because their subjects are not covered in secondary sources. If you feel that it does not make this clear then please re-write it. Please also read this discussion; this proposal is based on the consensus that was reached there.

Specific replies:

There is no present accepted guideline on these articles. A simple listing in an atlas or population data is not significant coverage. Not every television programme is notable just because it appeared in the channel listings in a load of TV guides.

Yes, encyclopaedias often contain atlases or gazetteers, they do not however, contain an article about every populated place as part of their main content.

The guideline specifically says that AfDs should not be pursued, rather merges and redirects should be applied whenever appropriate.

The received wisdom that "every populated place is notable" goes completely against the ideas of notability. No consensus has ever been reached that just because something exists it is automatically notable (see previously referenced discussion).

Why should we stop attempting to improve things just because worse things exist? If you banned anyone from improving an article until all Start-class were raised to C-class then Wikipedia would grind to a halt.

OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose A population centre who's existence can be verified in reliable sources should be included in Wikipedia in some form only if it is notable. We can't give an exemption from WP:N just because a topic exists or is recorded in a reliable tertiary source, any more than I can claim notability just because I am an editor of Wikipedia, and my argumements are recorded on this talk page. In any case, what use is it to include a topic if there is no commentary, context, criticism or analysis from reliable secondary sources with which to write an encyclopedic article? None. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? That's the whole point of this guideline. Why do you oppose? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach in the section "Criteria for judging small population centres", which provides exemptions from WP:GNG for places if notability can be infered from another topic. In my view, just because a place is connected to a notable person or event, it does not make it notable per se - see Notability cannot be inherited. No matter how notable a related topic might be, it is of no value to writing an article if there is no commentary, context, criticism or analysis from reliable secondary sources with which covers the place itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An example

A few miles from where I live is the village of Sarratt, which would fail your notability test. Can you really say that it shouldn't have a separate article? If it is to be merged then where to? It comes under the Three Rivers local council, but that is an artificial construct of several towns and villages created for administrative purposes. Nobody uses the name Three Rivers unless they are particularly referring to local government, and anybody wanting to find information about Sarratt shouldn't have to read through information about Chorleywood and Abbots Langley to find what they want. Sarratt is in the Rickmansworth postal district, but it is not in the town of Rickmansworth - again that is simply an administrative convenience. We should be presenting the specific information that people request when they type in the name of a place. If they want information about the wider area then the beauty of hyperlinks means that it is only one click away. I would also point out that the existence of the article prompted me to improve it by adding a population figure. I wouldn't have bothered if the article hadn't existed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Sarrat passes, having a historic church, and connections to both a series of book and a film. What's the problem? If you think other criteria should be added, then add them. Plus, it features in a historical commentary[4]. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The church may be historic, but I don't believe that it's listed - certainly not grade 1. I see no evidence that the church itself is notable, so I don't see how the village could possibly inherit notability from it, even if such inheritance was allowed. And are you saying that mentions in recent fiction count for more than mentions in historical factual records? I don't see how any of that conforms with the text of this proposed guideline, so you would have to change it to let Sarratt in. You would then find that the next obviously notable village would come along that doesn't pass this Byzantine guideline and have to change it again, and again and again. This village's suitability to have an encyclopedia article stems from the fact that generations of people have lived out their lives there, not from whether it has a particular builing that was used as a film set or that it was mentioned in a work of fiction. I would advise you to do a bit of triage here by re-reading Articles for deletion/Astley Cross (whose near-unanimous outcome, I note, you have subverted), the AfDs that I linked above, and the Village Pump discussion that you linked above (whose outcome you have grossly misinterpreted). This proposal is a patient that you should put out of its misery by withdrawing treatment now rather than investing any more effort into keeping it alive. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you will find that every church that was built before 1900 is listed to at least grade II in the UK. Is gaining notability by having some aspect given significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (at least a film in this case) less ridiculous than gaining notability by having some random people live there?

• Hmmm. I have several people I'd like to comment at. I'm not sure exactly how to quote them, please forgive me if I break formatting guidelines and grant me direction.

"The correct guideline is the present one, that all verifiable populated places with a jurisdictional or distinct geographic identity are notable" DGG

I can find no reference to said guidelines, and never have been able to. Whether there is even a consensus is debatable - if there was a consensus, then this article would never have been written in the first place. I can say for myself that I don't agree that locations with population are notable.

"Encyclopedias have always contained detailed atlases and gazeteers." DGG

While I would agree that encyclopedias often include a map of the world and sometimes maps of specific regions, I have never seen an atlas that had a separate page for every single city in its pages. While Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not an atlas - atlases are, by definition, a collection of maps, and more suited for Wikimedia. A gazetteer is a geographic directory - a collection of facts and statistics, which is more what these stubs resemble. Which returns to the first argument - Wikipedia is not a directory. Gazetteers, atlases, and encyclopedias are three very different styles of books, and I feel we should keep Wikipedia firmly in the area of encyclopedias.

"People might want to look up information about quite minor places: why should we decree that they can't?" JamesBWatson

Well, if there's no information about them other than a name and geo coordinates, then what are they looking up? How does having the stub improve Wikipedia's ability to get them whatever information they're looking for? If there was extra information available for the location, then the location's page would have that information, and independent references.

If a location is notable, then I have no objection to its inclusion - but we already have guidelines for what makes anything notable, and first among them is a substantial amount of coverage in secondary sources. Just because a location is notable to the people that live there does not make it notable to the people of the world at large. Crickel (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus that being a gazetteer is part of Wikipedia's mission is in the very first sentence of the document that defines what it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I still personally feel that Wikipedia should be more of an encylopedia than a gazetteer, but I'll withdraw that portion of my argument. However, I would also note that in the very next line, it states that all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy. Something I strongly object to - geographic stubs with no references, whatsoever. I've run across quite a lot them while browsing Wikipedia at random. Claiming that these articles are notable simply because they discuss a location which claims to have a certain population strikes me as quite a bad idea.

And if Wikipedia absolutely must also be a gazetteer in addition to an Encyclopedia, can't we at least do that in a sensible way, with one page covering many, many entries over a geographic area, instead of having a separate page for each entry? Crickel (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What is more sensible about that? As I said above, if a reader types in the name of a small village then the best way that we can provide the requested information is to present the specific information that we have about that village, even if it's just one or two facts, and link to articles about the surrounding area so that the reader can choose whether or not to look further. How is it better to immediately present an article on a larger area and make the reader search for the requested information within a large article? We exist to provide the information that readers are looking for, not to make the place look tidy. Of course information must be verifiable - I don't see anyone arguing against that. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sarratt is a highly notable place if the link to British History Online cited in the article is anything to go by. However, it is debateable whether towns like Loudwater, Hertfordshire should be included if there is nothing to write about them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that if a place has a well-established enough name to be marked on maps there will always be something to write about them. For Loudwater something already has been written - its location, geographical feature, parish, post town, local authority etc. I bet there's more that could be written about this and any other place on the map if someone takes the trouble to look up the information. I'll take your comment as a challenge and see what I can do with the Loudwater article over the next couple of hours. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've been working on the Loudwater article for just over an hour now (which included a cigarette break), and I think that it would now be difficult for anyone say that there's nothing to write about the place. Note that I didn't cherry-pick this as an example that I knew could be easily improved - it was offered as an example of a place about which there was nothing to be written. The same could be done for any population centre with an established name. It's just that it can't all be done immediately, especially when constructive editors have to spend so much of their time arguing against people who would rather hide information from readers in long articles rather than show them what they ask for. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work. However, it doesn't prove that every place with a name has the same coverage. No finding of examples will prove this, unless you exhaustively work through every place on the planet. If you feel like doing some more of this wonderful work, have a go at Astley Cross or Singleborough (theoretically should be the least challenging, being in England rather than Mongolia or Argentina). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you emphasised the "IF". I don't have the time to do this sort sort of thing to more than one or two articles a week, but I would point out that, as Wikipedia aspires to be a gazetteer, we should at least include entries for places that appear in paper gazetteers. Astley Cross has an entry in The Gazetteer of England[5] and Singleborough has an entry in the mother of all gazetteers[6]. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that emphasis was unintentional. All the gazetteer contains is its location (and what might be a population). The Domesday Book is a census. I don't think noting that the fief held 230 cows and a housecarl of King Edward owned a barn or whatever it says counts as significant coverage, suitable for an article. Please try and see the difference between proof of existence and proof of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gazetteer??

We are told that we should not include "articles which can never be expanded beyond simple location and population data because their subjects are not covered in secondary sources". Why? Why should not someone be able to look up a minor place and read basic information about its location and population? We are asked "Well, if there's no information about them other than a name and geo coordinates, then what are they looking up?" Answer: they are looking up where the place is, which may be helpful to them, and if it isn't then they have lost no more time by looking and finding that is all Wikipedia can tell them than they would have lost by looking up the place and finding Wikipedia had no article about the place.

In the Village pump discussion referred to there occurs the following comment: "Short stubs can be useful, if sources are cited and the location of the place is clear enough, and a place that is officially recognised (e.g. if it appears both in censuses and on maps) is likely to have enough coverage for more than a stub. Geographical articles are less likely to have problems than articles about companies and living people". Here is someone who uses "can be useful" as a criterion, and recognises that the reasons for disliking stubs in some situations do not necessarily apply in this case.

On the other hand as far as I can out make the people who are in favour of restricting inclusion of places use as their criterion the notion that this is not what an encyclopedia is: the argument is "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, and should only do things which real encyclopedias do". However, there are several objections to this line. Firstly, many published encyclopedias do include some information of this sort. OrangeDog says "Yes, encyclopaedias often contain atlases or gazetteers, they do not however, contain an article about every populated place as part of their main content". The fact that paper encyclopedias don't include more of this kind of material is largely due to the impossible amount of space which would be taken up by thousands of entries for thousands of tiny places; however, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and does not have to suffer from the same constraints. I believe that the great strength of Wikipedia is that it can do many things which paper encyclopedias can't, and being more inclusive is one of them. The line that we should hold back this open online encyclopedia to the level which would be attainable if we were using an earlier, more limited technology is unconstructive. (Essentially this argument was put forward by JulesH in the village pump discussion referred to. The notion that that discussion produced consensus for this kind of restriction puzzles me considerably. There is a heated debate, with very different opinions expressed. In fact, without doing any statistical analysis, I am inclined to think the balance of opinion was probably against the proposed change.)

Finally, you will search in vain for a Wikipedia is not a gazetteer policy: that is just an opinion of some editors. In fact on the contrary, as Phil Bridger has pointed out, the very first of the Five pillars of Wikipedia states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". So the argument repeatedly put forward that Wikipedia should not act as a gazetteer is contrary to the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia is not a directory policy has been referred to, but I have read that policy several times over, and although there is a point of contact none of the categories listed covers this case. There is, however, a Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important reference for information about places and place names (see: toponomy), used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas. It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a country, region, or continent as well as the social statistics and physical features, such as mountains, waterways, or roads. Examples of information you would find include the location of places, dimensions of physical features, population, GDP, literacy rate, etc. This information is generally divided into overhead topics with entries listed in alphabetical order.

A gazetteer is not a series of pages with one sentence on each. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it is often argued that Wikipedia incorporates some aspects of alamanac and gazetteers, it does so only to the extent that the topic in question is notable. Alamanacs might have infomration on high tides, full moons but these topics are not always covered unless they are notable, e.g. Spring tide, Full moon. In terms of locations, only those that are the subject of reliable secondary sources get a standalone article because these sources are what is needed to write an encyclopedic article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• "... it does so only to the extent that the topic in question is notable": Yes, of course, as far as I am aware nobody disputes that. What is debated is what constitutes sufficient notability.
• "... it is often argued that Wikipedia incorporates some aspects of alamanac and gazetteers": I think "it is often argued" considerably understates what is a Wikipedia policy, and indeed incorporated in the five pillars.
• I have seen publications describing themselves as "gazetteers" which contain less than a sentence on each place. For example for many years the Ordnance Survey used to publish a "gazetteer" which listed only the names of places and their grid references.

However, more important than any of that is the fact that the ground has shifted here. The word "gazetteer" was introduced in arguments that Wikipedia should exclude entries for minor places, as an example of what Wikipedia is not. For example, Crickel wrote: A gazetteer is a geographic directory - a collection of facts and statistics, which is more what these stubs resemble... Gazetteers, atlases, and encyclopedias are three very different styles of books, and I feel we should keep Wikipedia firmly in the area of encyclopedias. When it is pointed out that Wikipedia policy is that we should include gazetteer information, we get those who wish to exclude articles on minor places now arguing that on the contrary a gazetteer is not "what these stubs resemble".

As far as I can see the question "what is a gazetteer?" is irrelevant: the question was only raised in claims that "we should exclude articles on minor places because Wikipedia is not a gazetteer", and since Wikipedia policy says otherwise I see no further point in discussing it.JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another example

Another village with which I'm familar is Batchworth (pop. 206). This contains no church or school and I know of no references to it in popular culture, but because it is in a western anglophone country and just outside the capital (so close that a few of the houses are actually within the London Borough of Hillingdon, but that's my original research from my knowledge obtained from a pub owner that the county boundary goes along the back of his garden) you can find hundreds of reliable sources online - see [7] and [8]. Why should it be considered more notable than similar villages in other countries that don't have such good online coverage? Should we merge this somewhere so that readers will have to read loads of information about other places before getting to the information they ask for? And where do we merge it to anyway? And what if someone wants to add information to the infobox (as I just did with the population) and there is no infobox to add it to? The whole idea of this guideline is antipathetic to the writing of an encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers, which is what we are supposed to be doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, just by the links you provide, this place passes. It should be included because it does have reliable coverage in secondary sources. Featured in an historical and social commentarys: Numismatic Chronical, The Story of Arthur Evans and his forbears, History of Parliament, etc. Plus apparently the film Flashbacks Of A Fool and having a golf course that has hosted notable competitions. Whether this coverage is online is irrelevant. Smaller, non-notable hamlets in England and elsewhere should be considered non-notable because they do not feature this coverage in secondary sources. If you believe that there is a quantifiable indicator of notability that this guideline does not include, then feel free to add it. So far, your presentation of examples seems to show a misunderstanding of what this guideline says. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The point that I am making is that any named populated place will have had substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sometimes, as with Batchworth, it will be easy to find these sources with online searches, but in many cases it will be more difficult, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that sources will always exist. Once again, I am not advocating any relaxation of verifiabilty policy, but am saying that once that has been passed then it is perfectly valid to assume that enough coverage exists in reliable sources (whether online or offline) to show notability for any settlement whether it is in Hertfordshire or Ekiti. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it perfectly reasonable to assume that such sources exist? Why is it legitimate to extend this to an all-encompassing blanket judgement without reasoning or allowance for specific cases? Why is it acceptable to create articles if no proof for the existence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be found? What is wrong with a guideline that attempts to aid in the decision about whether these sources are going to exist? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that if any place name is well-established enough to get on a map published by a reliable source, further reliable sources will almost certainly exist. Where do you think map-makers get their information from? They don't just make names up. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Typically a team of cartographers will manually traverse the country and record every place that they find. The same for collecting an initial census. In more developed countries these days all buildings, development work, births and deaths must be registered with the local government, so places get logged there. People who make maps or censuses don't go looking for secondary sources to establish notability before they put it on a map, they deal purely with what exists, and check it directly. If no name exists for a place, either they ask the people there or, indeed, make it up (ooh, here's a new place with lots of interesting plants; let's call it Botany Bay). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to check for hoaxes

One reason for looking for secondary sources is to avoid contaminating Wikipedia with disinformation. We had for over two years a plausible-looking entry about an absolutely non-existent village in Shropshire - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monvilla. A quick search even found references to it, which I guess must have been created by automatic systems from our article. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we abandon the requirement for verifiability. A hoax village could just as easily be put into a larger merged article as in a standalone article. In fact it's more likely to be spotted in a standalone article. Would anyone have noticed the Monvilla hoax if it had been added as a line in an article about a nearby town rather than created as a separate article? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is much easier to find verifiable evidence for the existence of a place than for most other subjects: the appearance on an official map, for example, should be sufficient proof in itself. What is debated is how much and what kind of notability is required to justify a separate article on the place, which is a completely different question.JamesBWatson (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)