- 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 keep. Still no takers for deletion, so it's keep for a second time. (non-admin closure) asilvering ( talk) 00:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle ( talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood ( talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place. The current population is irrelevant. – Joe ( talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gven that the rational was WP:NOPAGE, this vote should be struck as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND, it's verifiable. SportingFlyer T· C 15:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, WP:GEOLAND only suggests inclusion, not an individual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: per
WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD?
C F A
💬
02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
- This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.
- Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?
- Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?
- There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.
- Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?
- Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
-
- If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
- There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.
- I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it needs one or the other, and it’s easier to start here. Qwirkle ( talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
- Comment I closed this as Keep but was asked to reopen this discussion so I have done so. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 8 July 2024 (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.