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 No consensus (default keep). Non-admin closure. Swarm^(Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle, Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Once-sentence, unnotable, no refrences, an orphan. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 22:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunate Keep I agree that it shouldn't be considered notable, but WP policies say that any populated city/town/village is automatically considered notable. TJ Spyke 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy says that? There's not even a notability guideline for populated places. Reyk _YO! 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete At a minimum, it has to be established that a populated place be considered its own separate entity. A county road with houses upon it would be a populated place, but not something recognized as its own separate entity. In Sweden, as in the United States, there is data that is drawn from separately designated places. There is no evidence that this is anything that would qualify this as its own separate "populated place", let alone as a city, town or village. The only link in the article is to Google maps, and this is clearly a couple of farms -- not even a neighborhood -- near Östervåla, which is a village of 1,570 inhabitants. The reason that we have information about Östervåla is the aforementioned census information from Sweden, and that source has no mention of "Huggle". As with many such articles, I suspect that this a case of someone writing about a place with an amusing name. Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable area of Sweden...doesn't even deserve to be called a town. Would anyone like to know why this article was created? It was created by user:Gurch, the creator of...you guessed it, Huggle, a great anti-vandalism tool. Obviously, the fact that it has the same name as a tool is not notable...so, again, delete. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Oh, how I wish I tagged it for speedy deletion! Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 23:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places. All towns and villages are notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:DEFACTO as populated places are inherently notable, but needs to be expanded, an example source would be this.  fetchcomms☛ 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FallingRain.com does not limit itself to officially recognized (i.e., as a location in a national census) communities. It's a wonderful service, but when you run your own hometown and then look at the fallingrain.com description of nearby localities, you'll see that most of them are not something that you and your neighbors would never refer to as a "town". An apartment building is a "populated place", but that doesn't mean that it's a community. I'm all in favor of the right to an article for actual incorporated cities and towns, as well as unincorporated communities that have their own post office, but we have to make sure that the inherent right of notability for populated places doesn't get abused-- which appears to be the case here. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can find no reliable sources to establish the existence of this as a definable settlement. (That Fallingrain site does not seem to meet the requirements and may indeed be dependent on the WP article.) Unless something authoritative can be cited, this fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here is the weather in Huggle: http://www.vackertvader.se/huggle Here are more references from the .se geographic top-level domain to Huggle: http://www.google.com/search?q=Huggle+site%3Ase&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en --Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. And here are four references to Huggle from the website of Heby municipality, which includes Huggle: http://www.google.com/search?q=Huggle+site%3Aheby.se&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en Huggle is real. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you interpret or translate them for us? When I search for the word "Huggle" in the first hit, I get no result; and a similar search in the other hits produces results that I'm unable to relate to the concept of verifiabilty. Deor (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the pages from Heby municipality, http://www.heby.se/index.php3?use=fortroende&cmd=showperson&id=173&lang=1&s_tpl=print is the page for a municipal council member who lives in Huggle Östervåla sockennämnd 1848-1856.pdf AND Östervåla kommunalstämmoprotokoll 1863 till 1882.pdf are transcriptions of minute books with details such as "The parish committee members elected until the year 1850:" and their addresses - some are in Huggle, meaning that Huggle existsed in 1850. del5.pdf has a reference to Huggle ("014 Holvarbo - Huggle - By (I)") in a table at the bottom of page 4 (folio page 85). http://www.booli.se/salda/villa/huggle/327768/ lists the price (and the price per square meter) of a house in Huggle. http://www.holfve.se/brev.htm lists Anders Mattsson, born in Huggle in 1745. http://www.unc.se/foretag/visax.php3?id=1213177 is someone's address in Huggle. So there is plenty of evidence that Huggle is a long-established settlement, closely connected with Östervåla - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An apartment building is populated, but that doesn't mean it's notable.Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 12:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources can be found documenting this place. Our common outcomes do not override essential content policies such as WP:V. ThemFromSpace 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as noted above for common outcomes. However, this may be more of a hamlet, which may be dificult to verify, and thus could be merged and redirected into Heby Municipality. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete It's not on the List of urban areas in Sweden which includes all geographically separate localities of 200 people or more. It's a "name on a map" that seems to cover about 3-5 farms, judging from satellite photos such as this Eniro map (zoom in a little from standard view). I guess it is used as a name in the property register for these few farms; the same goes for all the other dozens of names that you see on the map surrounding Östervåla, they are also not separate localities but likely property names associated with a few farms each. Huggle is used as a postal adress at "street" level within Östervåla, it doesn't have the status as a separate postal "village". (NN, Huggle XXX, SE-740 46 Östervåla, Sweden if anyone wants to send a letter.) Tomas e (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Geographic articles are an important part of Wikipedia, and are almost inherintly notable. More importantly per WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." It is established that this place does exist, and thats good enough for me. --Marcusmax(speak) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• !vote : (this is not a vote, I do not know the policy for tiny places, so I'm not sure if a place is considered notable) But all the talk above that we need RS and V to prove 'the existence of this as a definable settlement' made me try to find some sources, these sources are NOT sources to put in the article, it is not sources that prove notability, but they should prove that it is not a made up place, and they prove that the municipal recognize the place. So Huggle is a place in Sweden, there is enough RS (in Swedish) to prove that, it is small if not VERY small place! Should it be described in Wikipedia? I do not know:
  • [1] from a government? entity that proves at least that someone in one of their working groups lives there
  • [2] , [3] a overview plan for use of territory from the Heby Municipality that states that huggle is a large unused area. --Stefan ^talk 06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, so by "place" is Huggle a municipality like a town or a village, or is it just a local name for an area of land? The former would warrant an article but probably not the latter. Is there a relevant WikiProject to bring this up at? Editors who are familiar with Sweden might be of some assistance. ThemFromSpace 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Hegvalds comment below, it is NOT a municipality, as I stated Heby Municipality is the municipality that Huggle is part of, in Swedish it is a sv:by. I did not want to call it village since I thought by and village was not really the same, that is why I called it place (that was neutral enough), Hegvald did a good job of explaining what I kind of guessed but did not know, thanks. --Stefan ^talk 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Historically speaking, Huggle is a by, which is a historic division on a sub-parish level, consisting of a few farms. "Hamlet" may be the closest English equivalent. (By can also be translated "village", but a by in Sweden is usually nothing like an English or continental European village.) Today, it is just an address. According to http://www.ratsit.se, there are currently 22 people above the age of 18 living in Huggle. --Hegvald (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Lets all move there. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not one source has convinced me that this is a separate geographical place such as a village. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and this so far has not been verified. All links given above that I have followed fail to show this. That Huggle is real is not the point, unless we have references that show for certain it is a separate inhabited place it fails any claim of notability. If it can be shown that it is a separate "Hamlet" then fine but I don't think this has been done yet including the link Hegvald has given which shows nothing. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The link shows exactly what I claimed it would show (once you insert the right search term, obviously): that there are now 22 adult people with the address Huggle. Not sure what your point is. Would Huggle, with 22 adult inhabitants, suddenly turn "notable" if there was a source saying that it is, indeed, a separately defined place of a certain type? --Hegvald (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep real place=notable WP:PILLARS and WP:DEFACTO. Why do people want to keep dumbing down the encyclopedia. Has the nominator read the 5 Pillars? Let me quote the opening line of the 1st pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added) perhaps someone is missing something... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the key word in that first pillar is "elements". The policies that have evolved over the years guide which elements of an encyclopedia, almanac or gazetteer automatically merit their own article and which ones would be open to debate, hence the concept that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". All of us, whether we argue for a keep or a delete, have our opinions about what is improving or "dumbing down" an encyclopedia. Although it's debatable as to whether Huggle would be notable now, the Swedish census information that was provided by Eastmain indicates that this would have been considered notable in the 19th century, and notability does not expire. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep looks notable, can be expanded with sources provided above. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the sources above seem to establish that this is a real, established community (though it would help if they were in the article), it should be kept per the general rule for community articles. As far as the "separate place" thing goes, the fact that this has been verified as a named community should be enough, as I don't think Sweden has an equivalent to the Geographic Names Information System for tracking the Swedish equivalent of unincorporated communities/hamlets (which are considered notable and which this pretty much is). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:38, 6 February 2010 (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.