Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakielec

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 was keep. Tone 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakielec

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of noteability through third party sources. Article created and edited entirely by bots. Jtrainor (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It shows up on a census, which is usually enough to satisfy WP:NGEO. I'll try to find other sources as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Changed vote to neutral. Other than the census on the wiki page I'm having some trouble finding anything that doesn't direct back to the wiki article.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
Keep per our usual practice with verified villages. Here's another source confirming existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it exists, which is enough for a village. --Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If you're going to delete this one then the whole productive effort of Kotbot should go up for deletion. And that's not going to happen. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to let the air out of your tires, but WP:NGEO is an essay and not a policy. "Because it exists" isn't a criteria anywhere within the noteability policy. Jtrainor (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it does reflect our actual practice, which is what counts, rather than the bureaucratic designation as a essay rather than a policy or guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tiny Polish village but notable enough according to our standards. - Darwinek (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it exists=> its kept and frankly being created by bot is not a deletion criterion; bots get approved for reasons, presumably deleting what they do simply because they did it, is not that reason. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2011 (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.