Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronche

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 of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronche

Delete The article is not encyclopedical. The contents of this article should be included in the article of the municipality of which is part. However near Aviano Air Base exists at least two small hamlets with this name located in two different municipalities (Sacile and Fontanafredda); the description is so generic that can fit to both. Dani 7C3 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when the main economic activity in a hamlet is a bar, you know it's not notable. --BWD^(talk) 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's got a bar, and that's a whole lot more than many other geographical locations in Wikipedia has got. Eivind 02:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If I'm an inclusionist on anything it's places... If an interested party familiar with wikistyle had a go at this I'd be more inclined to jump left or right. Deizio 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds interesting. --Masssiveego 05:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Monkeyman^(talk) 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has to be a limit to the notability of geographical locales. This is just too small I think. Crzrussian 07:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree entirely with Deizio -- Samir (the scope) 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this list of hamlets in Italy, there are two places called Ronche in Pordenone province, one in the municipality of Fontanafredda, the other in Sacile. It is not clear to me which one the article is supposed to be about. David Sneek 09:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Oops, I overlooked Dani 7C3's comment above. But it seems to be the Ronche in Sacile, because that is the one on the ss13 [1].)[reply]
Comment I live about 3km from Ronche in Sacile and 10 km from the one in Fontanafredda, and I've been to both. Also the one in the Fontanafredda municipality is on the SS13 so it is impossible to determine to which the article refers: having a bar, being surrounded by fields and having a small American community are features common to both and to dozens of other hamlets near Aviano AB.--Dani 7C3 14:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing on really small places, I've found it useful to combine them (eg Fenton Barns, East Fenton and West Fenton) but only if a really small place is next to a slightly bigger place. I would have no problem with these being merged with larger places nearby but don't want to see them deleted just because nobody merged them. There must be some distinguishing features of the town, the names of bars, churches etc? Certainly map coordinates. Deizio 14:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Samir. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. A place can be small and still be interesting, perhaps even more so. However, I believe articles should prove their worth by providing content, which this fails to do. I think the line "The small dirt roads in the near by fields and the fields themselves are great for walking and cycling. One can often find rabbits and other assorted wildlife in the fields," should be removed (wikipedia is not a tourism brochure), which already destroys 25% of the article. --Cymsdal e 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Deizio. Bucketsofg 15:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article is not unencyclopedic. it shouldn't be deleted just because its a stub. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's so unencyclopedic that we don't even know what hamlet it is about... How about doing it like this:

Ronche is the name of several hamlets in Italy:

Ronche in the Lamon municipality in Belluno province in the Veneto region.
Ronche in the Oderzo municipality in Treviso province in the Veneto region.
Ronche in the Fontanafredda municipality in Pordenone province in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region.
Ronche in the Sacile municipality in Pordenone province in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region.

And add some more information if we can find it. David Sneek 18:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and turn into a disambiguation page, as per David Sneek. 138.89.184.59 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that was me (forgot to log in). AndyZ 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we've established it's not a hoax. Article content can be sorted out via consensus editing. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we generally do with real places, tag for cleanup. Just zis Guy you know? 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation, as above. But why "hamlet"? Village? Municipality? Town? ProhibitOnions 20:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also if we would turn this in a disambiguation page, then would make sense to create an article for every hamlets named Ronche? And more generally does every hamlet (or more properly frazione) of every italian municipality really deserve an article? Italian municipality are 8101 and almost all of them have at least a frazione. This would result in a series of more of 8100 stubs of maximum two or three lines of text, in fact in Italian Wikipedia the policy is to mention frazioni in their relative municipality article, in the proper part of the infobox; only in exceptional cases a frazione has its article, when there is something more to write than X is a frazione of the municipality Y in the province of Z."--Dani 7C3 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep See this 2004 vote to delete other small town articles. Feezo (Talk) 23:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. But it's kind of funny that it (so far) doesn't rate an article in the Italian Wikipedia. Peter Grey 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my comment above it wasn't my idea to suggest this should become a disambiguation page that links to four different Ronche articles; I just think it would be better if all of them are simply mentioned in this article. Useful information on the different Ronches could then go into the articles on the municipalities, as is done in the Italian wikipedia. (See Dani's comment). David Sneek 08:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David idea, in this page could be mentioned the four villages, further informations would be on the relative municipalities pages, in this article could be explained the meaning of the toponym Ronche.--Dani 7C3 13:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO places should only be grouped together if they are really tiny and geographically adjacent, rather than identically named. I've created a disambig page at Ronche (disambiguation). The Ronche article could be moved to Ronche (Sacile) and the disambig updated accordingly if it comes through AfD. There are very clear precedents that any distinct settlement, especially a named village with its own festivals and industry (as opposed to a sub-district of a city, for example) is entitled to an entry. If no-one has the requisite knowledge to create pages on the other "Ronche"s , they can remain uncreated. Deizio 14:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Keep. David Sneek 19:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs expansion!Newyorktimescrossword 09:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a real municipality , and these locations always are allowed ot have articles. --Larsinio 19:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Larsinio, pleas note that all the four Ronche aren't municipalities, they are all frazioni, a subdivisions of municipalities, they don't have a mayor and a council or an administrative office, they only exists written on name in the chart of the respective municipalities, they haven't any defined border.--Dani 7C3 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disambig per above. Sandstein 09:38, 14 March 2006 (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.