Talk:Woodworth

Are the linked towns article-worthy?

There has been much heated debate on whether every map dot should get its own article, with the general consensus being (as far as I understand it):

1. If you can sleep there it gets an article
2. OR if someone wants to write an article about their home town then an article is probably OK.

In the case of the two Woodworth's that are linked to from the disambiguation page, one has a population of 80, and the other is a part of a larger metropolitan region in Louisiana, so I'm not sure that they actually meet the article criteria... -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:56, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Many times I've deliberately left place names unlinked when creating disambiguation pages, but often someone comes along and links them a few minutes later. Example: 'disagree' - "the other places in a disambiguation page are always linked"

I've also tried "commenting-out" doubtful place names when creating disambiguation pages, but often someone comes along and un-comments them a few minutes later. Example: yesterday

FWIW I linked to Woodworth (North Dakota) because it was already linked to from Stutsman County since May 2005; and because that was the smaller of the two places, there wasn't much point to leaving the larger place unlinked. ~ 203.144.143.2 22:47, 24 December 2006 (EST)

My concern is less about whether the articles on this disambiguation page should have links or not, and more about whether we should even have this disambiguation page if it's not even clear whether there are articles needing disambiguating. I realize that this article was re-created due to the fact that our friend originally added it, but if we're going to keep any of his contributions I think it's important that we keep them for a reason. In this case I'm not sure there's a reason for this article to be here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:34, 24 December 2006 (EST)

I agree with your original "not sure" (Are the linked towns article-worthy? and not sure that they actually meet the article criteria - ie for sure, it's sometimes difficult to be sure for certain if a location does or does not meet the article criteria - but nothing new there). Beyond that I don't see any problem with the existence of the disambiguation article itself, so I'm extremely unsure about your second not sure (not sure there's a reason for this article to be here); taking both your "not sure"s together, I think if either or both locations turns out not to warrant a dedicated article, this page is probably even more helpful than a disambiguation where every location is linked.

Maybe the best way to put this to the test is to VFD it. ~ 203.144.143.2 00:29, 25 December 2006 (EST)

In my opinion it doesn't do any harm to have articles like this, although its practical significance is probably limited. The tiny place in ND likely doesn't merit an article of its own, but the disambiguator is still useful as we creep gingerly toward having "Rural Area" articles. I'm pulling the VFD, on the grounds that the discussion (below) seems to be in favor of not deleting. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:14, 8 January 2007 (EST)

VFD discussion

Woodworth

I created this, but on Talk:Woodworth#Are the linked towns article-worthy? it's been suggested ...not sure there's a reason for this article to be here. ~ 203.144.143.2 00:28, 25 December 2006 (EST)

• Delete until/unless the disambiguation page is eventually needed. This article was original created without any location information by 74.69.245.148, speedy deleted, and then re-created as a disambiguation page that links to two non-existent articles. Of the two towns being linked to, one has a population of 80, and the other is part of a larger city, so I'm not sure that we would create articles for either one, which leaves the question of why would we have a disambiguation page when we don't (and may never) have articles? If we're going to create an article or a redirect for every dot on the map then this disambiguation page will eventually be needed and should be kept, but if we're going to continue to use the criteria that not every map dot necessarily gets its own article then this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Talk:Woodworth has further comments. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:39, 25 December 2006 (EST)

• Keep. Both places exist, one is fairly large with a population over 1,000 Woodworth_Louisiana] with their own webpage and the home of Indian Creek Recreation Area (whatever that is). The other town is smaller with 80 people Woodworth_North_Dakota and was established in 1911 and is in a state where small towns and places are the rule. Both of those places deserve an article, so at some point the disambiguation will be needed, better now then after someone creates the location without disambiguation (again). As far a creating a article or redirect for every "dot" on the map, I think we need to define what a dot is and how to handle them. Of course, my first question is "If there is a dot on the map, then why?" My guess is that someone might want to know where it is at so they can visit. I realize there are people that think if a place is not a "Megagobmetroplexamusalopalus" (that's hillbilly for a big town) then there is no reason to visit, see, do and for sure if you can't find a commercial establishment to "pay" to sleep, then there is no reason to ever visit or to think anyone else would ever go there and they should be quickly deleted. I disagree. Funny thing about it is there are people in small towns that are so misinformed to think places like New York should be deleted. Now I do agree that "we" would likely not create an article for this places (the small ones), but I do think that "someone" might and for that matter should create one. Now if someone stumbles across the dab page and creates an article for one of the places, is that bad? Should it be VFD'ed? The answer in the past has been "No"! Because if someone creates an article with "good" intent about town then is should be kept! Here is my thought.... Someone types in the search "Woodworth".... "Wow, there is the link to my town!" They think; I am welcome, they want me here, my town has a link, I love my town, let me put some information in so everyone will know about it and what is good about the place where I live. If this dab is deleted, trust me.... At some point we will have a Woodworth that is created again and every time we delete it, we will be deleting the user that created it. Gee, I do wish that would work in the case of our article creation monster 74.69.245.148. Lastly, thanks to all for putting up this small town guy and hillbilly from the Ozarks and with all my rants for small places, have a very good and happy New Year! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:49, 25 December 2006 (EST)
• Keep, at least until we get the "Rural Areas" destination type that has been discussed lately. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:13, 25 December 2006 (EST)