Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kottem: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:03, 19 June 2006

Kottem

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia.

In fact there is a hamlet in Sint-Lievens-Houtem called Cotthem. No more than a circular road boarding on the Polbroek (which has also been turned into a metropolis as Polfbroekstraat). It was a hamlet of the village of Oombergen, which has been merged into Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Now, all that is already on the page of SLH. How can Sint-Lievens-Houtem, which has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, harbour a hamlet with 39,070 inhabitants?

Of course, I can provide pictures of this circular road (I happen to live in the neighbourhood - it is nice cycling there), but somehow I think that even a letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem is not going to convince those people (are there really four of them?) who are prepared to create a parallel universe.

What I write here also holds for Eiland and Polfbroekstraat (actually a misprint for Polbroek), of course: only relatively unimportant streets in Sint-Lievens-Houtem!User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy pgp 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following pictures show what a great metropolis Cotthem now is. Unfortunately, the only economic assets of Cotthem, two special beer pubs and two good but pricey restaurants are not shown here: [1] The walk started in the centre of Sint-Lievens-Houtem, so forget the first picture, which shows the church of SLH (not that it has much of a big apple feeling, by the way). If someone thinks this piece of the world needs mention in Wikipedia, because it is so peaceful there (one of the quietest places in East-Flanders) or because the Romans built part of Cotthem (the street, I mean), or because there is still a bridge over what used to be a tramway track long ago, go ahead ... User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be allowed to use one of these pictures (the Roman soldier, for instance) in the article?

Luckily for you, it is not a Roman soldier, only a "momnument" (to point out that the Romans built a street here, and no they did not build this whole street, only a small part of it) - so Belgian portrait right does not apply. Belgian copyright is at stake here - you will have to ask the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. But I'm sure they will think it such a good joke to make a Wikipedia article about this street that obtaining their permission will not be very difficult. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured it was probably a statue of a soldier, since there were no cameras in Ancient Rome/Belgium. I'll have to ask those folks about it. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fram 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your nomination gives no reason to delete the article besides that it "is a disgrace to Wikipedia." Those pictures of Cotthem establish that it does indeed exist, and if it's large enough to support 2 restaurants and 2 pubs, then it ought to be kept. Your pictures also establish the history of Cotthem, and you seem to know about the area. Why not add to the article? syphonbyte 01:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please realize that this is not an "area". It is a STREET running through green fields and an artificial wood. It does not "support" these pubs and restaurants, people from elsewhere come there (wonderful place to walk and cycle) to drink and eat. Just look up Cotthem 1 and then Cotthem 6 and Cotthem 9 in www.mappy.be (6 and 9 are the two pubs by the way) and you will see how far away houses are from each other. Basically it is a very quiet place which explains why people like to have a pint or a meal there. I did not know much about the street, I just looked on the website of the municipality of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. And I happen to understand the captions which appear when you hold your mouse on these pictures. And no, I am not going to add to an article which claims this is a city of more than 30,000 inhabitants, when every Belgian would find it a joke if it was in the Dutch-speaking Wikipedia - and we tend to put hamlets there which have fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. This street is not Wall Street. And no, I do not live there either (in case you are starting to think I am a nimby and want to keep it quiet). So my basic argument is: if you make an article about this street, you will have to make one about half of the streets in Belgium. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy---pgp 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That argument is not valid, you do not have to make articles about everything of comparable notability just because one exists. You still haven't provided a reason to delete the article beyond "it is a disgrace" and "this is a street," both of which are not reasons to delete an article. I still have seen no evidence beyond your claims that suggest that this is anything other than a town. syphonbyte 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are defending articles about things you know nothing about, as has been shown before. You and your friends only started to look at what Gotem really is and introduce that into the article after the AfD was filed, even though you had had two years of looking into it before, but just couldn't be bothered. Now you are trying to do the same all over again here, and will probably on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat as well. While Gotem was, luckily for you, an existing, though small, village (even though it had nothing to do with the original nonsense article), you don't have such an easy escape here. Take a look at this ViaMichelin page, and click on the map to have a better look. You can see that Kottem, Polfbroek, and Eiland, are three streets around the market of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. These are thoroughly non-notable and have no reason at all to be included in Wikipedia. If one of them has even one interesting, encyclopedic fact about them, add it to the main article about Sint-Lievens-Houtem.

My question to you and The Raven is still standing: why did you bother creating, modifying, and defending articles about places you know actually nothing about and had no idea about their importance, notability, or whatever? Was the only reason that they somehow turned up in your search for words similar to Got'em and Caught'em (probably the "first battle of Gotem", since the recent one is described as the second one)? I don't mind that this all started as a joke, but it has grown very, very stale, and the little bit of respect you as a group gained by correcting finally the Gotem article is rapidly disapearing again. Fram 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly this is irrelevant, although I could take the time to answer this question, it has no value in this discussion. The point is an article was created about Kottem, and some of us believe it is a town, the others a street. The latter group vehemently advocate deletion, while the former group attempt to fix the article and make it truthful/verfiable. I have yet to see any usefull contribution to this article from those who advocate its deletion, while (surprisingly enough) they present such contributions only on these 'votes for deletion' pages. If I were to make an analogy, we are a group of workers attempting to erect a building, while a crowd of jeering kids shouts at us with insults and various demoralizing statements from below. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It exists. If its wrong fix it. What is there more to talk about? It would be nice if you could provide pictures though.--The Raven 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That something exists is no reason to have it in an encyclopedia. It has to be notable. It is not. An article has to be possible that is more than a stub. It is not. If (a big if) anything of encyclopedic importance can be said about the street, add it to the Sint-Lievens-Houtem article.

Untrue, an article need never become more than a stub. Many articles can't become more than a stub but are still notable. syphonbyte 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. See e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents]: "City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable". If you can only make a stub from a street, then it is not notable. Furthermore, the current article lists nothing about this street that is true. Even worse, there is no street with this name, it is a typo in some database. I have not seen one textbased article (i.e. not a map) which says anything about this city or street, so why should I assume it exists and has any notability? Find me some information that shows it has notability and enough can be said about it to have an article about it. Until then, "Delete" is the only possible vote.

Beyond doubt it is notable, as User:Pan_Gerwazy has shown (in this very discussion!). If its a street then simply change the article. The Raven 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI chose a beautiful place to get my username form. Damn. It’s magnificent. Thank you for the images User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy.Polfbroekstraat 08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment The line above this is NOT by me, and is wilfully confusing. Note that this AfD is about Kottem, not Polfbroekstraat. One of this gang of four (perhaps the same one) also has a nickname "Gotem". So he was confused himself as well, I guess. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course that's not by you, it's by Polfbroekstraat the user. And "Gotem" is me, I have always made this very clear, including on my user page where I highlight this.

Delete It's a street, absolutely not a town. If you think is it, please provide a link to the PDF from the Belgian Institute for statictics, like is done on Gotem. You won't be able to do that. --Tuvic 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get snippy Tuvic. Its just an online enyclopedia so dont get your panties tied in a knot. If its a street then just say its a street. I am sure there are plenty (to lazy to serach) street names listed in Wikipeida. Therefore KEEP.578 [[User_talk:578|(Yes?)]] 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per Tuvic (unless I see some links to statbel). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is obviously not a hoax, we have even seen pictures of this. If it's not a town then change the article to reflect this. syphonbyte 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you look for the links then. We know this is legit its not my problem if you are to lazy to look around. If you dont have anything to say besdies "delete becuase of what Tuvic said" you are just wasting space.

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 *'''Delete''' as hoax per Tuvic (unless I see some links to statbel). [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 ::'''Comment''' This is obviously not a hoax, we have even seen pictures of this. If it's not a town then change the article to reflect this. [[User:Syphonbyte|syphonbyte]] 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
+:::How about you look for the links then. We know this is legit its not my problem if you are to lazy to look around. If you dont have anything to say besdies "delete becuase of what Tuvic said" you are just wasting space.