- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sollentuna Hundred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-liner without references or proof of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Can be merged with List of hundreds of Sweden (although that list seems to be incompleet). The Banner talk 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should note that the Swedish equivalent of the article contains more information and sources. Perhaps a user or two fluent with Swedish can translate the content? SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a valid geographic area historically, and Swedish WP already lists sources, so on both grounds GNG is not really an issue. I can translate it as and when, but the AfD does not depend on that: notability is shown by the existence of sources, not their inclusion in an article. I would oppose a merge to the list of hundreds; there is plenty to say about this one place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I understand policy, officially recognised geographical entities are notable (per WP:NGEO), whether they're still used officially or not - since notability isn't temporary (WP:NTEMP), we don't delete things that are no longer official geographical entities. If it's identical with a modern entity you might merge there, but nobody's suggested that. One of the functions of Wikipedia is to serve as a gazetteer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:The Banner is fighting a war against Sollentuna articles. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Parish. ChemTerm (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When you don't have arguments, you better shut up then starting to throw PAs. The Banner talk 11:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Chiswick Chap and Colapeninsula. I may just translate the sv-wiki article tonight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Translated. I don't think there's really any argument to delete this page now, nor should there ever have been if 10 seconds had been spent skimming the Swedish article. If you don't read Swedish and/or are sceptical of anything in a foreign language, then use Google Translate or something. Really, now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2012 (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.