Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyazka
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 04:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no town by this name in Pskov Oblast. There are two villages called "Vyazka", but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the two is meant. The article in its present form fails the "sufficient context" requirement and is named incorrectly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There is sufficient context to demonstrate that they are talking about a village. If there is confusion as to which one, then that needs to be fixed, not deleted. I had the same problem with Wylie, Texas since there are TWO towns called Wylie in Texas, necessitating the creation of Wylie Township, Texas. All places are automatically notable. Article needs fixing, not deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, how would you fix it? I, for example, can easily create two stubs about both Vyazkas (and under proper titles, too). Problem is, nothing from this stub would be transferred to either one of those two 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?); 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as the other: 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)[reply]
- 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. Verifiability always overrides notability (automatic or not).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as the other: 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)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:18, 18 January 2008 (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.