Talk:Burk's Falls

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada: Ontario / Geography / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

Keep I think this page should remain because of Wikipedia precedent. WP:AFDP says "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". The nominator obviously saw a stub and chose to nominate it. Agha Nader 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

WP:AFDP is not policy. WP:NOT is official policy. Can you provide policy or guideline-based reasons instead? The Behnam 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but i don't think I said WP:AFDP is official policy. Where did you get the idea I did? Furthermore, WP:NOT does not even mention the word city. So I think you need to elaborate on why you think WP:NOT is relevant. Please take WP:AFDP into consideration before nominating articles for deletion. I think this is irrelevant as I have already added to the article, and thus I can remove the tag. This is from my understanding of "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article , or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Of course you can renominate it for deletion, but at that point we can continue debating on the AfD page. But keep in mind, Wikipedia precedent dictates "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size"

WP:AFDP.

I never said you said it was policy; I just think it is important to point out. Do you read things before commenting on them? The specific part of WP:NOT I cited is inside of the tag. The idea is that Wikipedia doesn't indiscriminately collect information; the town doesn't have much notability aside from internal information, advertising, etc. Yes, there is trivia about the town, and self-promotional materials, but as yet I haven't found anything making it notable outside of itself. You can remove it if you want, but find sources aside from the community's own homepage. Remember, it needs to be notable in a greater sense. Wikipedia precedent doesn't "dictate" anything; it is just a collection of tips. Please establish notability based upon specific guidelines or policies. The Behnam 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read things before commenting on them? I never said you said I said it was policy; I just think it is important to point out. I think you get the idea as to how that can continue. I found it odd that you would mention WP:AFDP isn't official policy. Given that I never contested it, and it is obvious. Stari decisis is used in Wikipedia, and that is why there is an article on it with regards to AfD, WP:AFDP. I think it is high-time you explain why Burk's Falls isn't notable. Given that there is no "specific guidelines or policies" that says a city that hasn't been the object of much media attention, or what have you, isn't notable. Burk's Falls is notable since it is a village. Please see WP:AFDP. WP:AFDP says "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". Cities are notable on the basis of being a city. There is no need for Wikipedians to keep nominating these types of articles, since they have been nominated and kept time after time. Agha Nader 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

LOL! You most definitely did, Nader! Consider this from your post, "I may be mistaken, but i don't think I said WP:AFDP is official policy. Where did you get the idea I did?". You obviously operated under the assumption that I believed you said that it was official policy. Quite a blunder! Anyway, this isn't an Afd, and I really don't care to spend another five days to try deleting this petty article about an insignificant town. If I do end up starting an Afd, we can talk about its notability in more detail there. I couldn't find real, independent stuff about this town, and because of that I nominated it. Since you apparently consider it notable, you probably know where to look for sound information about the town. Hopefully, you will continue to improve the article, but unfortunately, I tried and couldn't find much to make this town significant. Good luck! The Behnam 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your amusement. Except your blunder, not mine, is the subject of my amusement. As you would say, LOL. I said that "I don't think I said WP:AFDP is official policy." Which is different from saying i.e. "you said I said it is official policy". I am not sure you will see the difference given your rapid responses. Please read [WP:WQT], it says "If you're arguing, take a break." I think it will stop you from making rash comments like your last. This reminds me of when I played you in chess. Thank you for accepting that you couldn't win in an AfD of Burk's Falls. This is very crucial. WP:WQT says "Concede a point, when you have no response to it". Agha Nader 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

You said, "Where did you get the idea I did?", so you clearly thought I had the idea that you said that it is policy. It is further amusing that you consistently act as if you cannot see the arguments. Quit digging your grave deeper and just admit you messed up! I don't what chess match you are referring to, but it is hardly relevant to Wikipedia. Based on a your post here and that on my talk page, you appear to be seeing things in terms of "defeating" me; I must tell you that Wikipedia isn't about defeating people, it is about improving the encyclopedia. If you are here on Wikipedia to continue conflict with me after I blocked your AIM name, I suggest you change course. My remark wasn't an acknowledgment of inability to win or not to win an AfD this article, but your inaccurate construction is clearly provocative. I hope you know that it is trolling when you make posts intended to provoke a response, and is not looked highly upon on Wikipedia. You need to improve your behavior significantly. The Behnam 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Wow, this is certainly a major fight between you two. On this one you could say that Agha is right, seeing as how a relevant guideline beats out a NON-relevent policy in this case. I mean, if this city were to be deleted, you know how many villages and towns would have to be deleted along with it? Thousands. It is knowing these facts that makes the article notable. That's not excusing the behavior of Agha at all, quite the opposite. I'm sure if you assumed good faith Behnam would've accepted what you were tryign to say, or at least considered it. Just my two cents.--Wizardman 06:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. As I mentioned, I'm not planning on pursuing deletion further, so hopefully there will be no more hostile comments on this page. The Behnam 06:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

On reflection I've removed the one piece of demographic information that was extracted from the 2006 census and replaced it with a link to the census results. That way we make all demographic information available, rather than just one figure. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]