Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksino
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Aleksino
There is no town by this name in Pskov Oblast. There are nine villages called "Aleksino", but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the nine is meant. The article in its present form fails the "sufficient context" requirement.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments above, all places are notable, article needs fixing not deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, how would you fix it? I, for example, can easily create nine stubs about all Aleksinos (and under proper titles, too). Problem is, nothing from this stub would be transferred to either one of those articles, because it is impossible to determine which one is actually meant. In other words—the context is obviously insufficient. The bottom line: if someone manages to miraculously fix this one-liner, that'd be swell, otherwise it should go as all it does is mis-informs readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- You would differentiate and rename to differentiate if needed. Because there is a place with this name that exists, it is automatically notable and shouldn't be subject to deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- But that's the problem—we can't rename it... because we don't know which place it is and have no means of determining that based on the available information! No one argues that all places are automatically notable—the problem is not with notability, but with lack of context.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is why I said to differentiate it first. I am pretty sure that as long as the place actually exists and the information is accurate for one of the places that has this name (and that hasn't been established, only claimed), then you CANT delete. Context is met as it is naming a town, locating its larger geographic area (in general) and stating a population. That is all you need to provide context for a place. Pharmboy (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- What I am trying to say is that all of the information in the article applies to all nine of the places equally; it is impossible to say for sure which one is actually meant. The stub is just too vague and unspecific to help in making a decision.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've made my points, and arguing them further isn't productive. I suggest you wait and see what others think. Pharmboy (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd hardly call this an argument. You have not properly addressed any of the arguments I set forth in the nom and during the discussion. Your points (all places are notable; articles should be improved, not deleted) are not at all being contested here; I 100% share these views with you. The article is proposed for deletion based on a set of criteria completely different from these points.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've made my points, and arguing them further isn't productive. I suggest you wait and see what others think. Pharmboy (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- What I am trying to say is that all of the information in the article applies to all nine of the places equally; it is impossible to say for sure which one is actually meant. The stub is just too vague and unspecific to help in making a decision.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is why I said to differentiate it first. I am pretty sure that as long as the place actually exists and the information is accurate for one of the places that has this name (and that hasn't been established, only claimed), then you CANT delete. Context is met as it is naming a town, locating its larger geographic area (in general) and stating a population. That is all you need to provide context for a place. Pharmboy (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- But that's the problem—we can't rename it... because we don't know which place it is and have no means of determining that based on the available information! No one argues that all places are automatically notable—the problem is not with notability, but with lack of context.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- You would differentiate and rename to differentiate if needed. Because there is a place with this name that exists, it is automatically notable and shouldn't be subject to deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:V, I couldn't find any evidence that this place exists in that area per google maps. The only place I found is in Ukraine, which should replace this content. Secret account 04:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep despite Secret's note: Google Maps isn't everything. Keep, too, despite comments above: there's nothing wrong with having it as somewhat of a disambiguation page, and since Ezhiki apparently has a source for all 9 towns, this can be useful as a little page about all of them. Nyttend (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
