Talk:Hinterschellenberg

@Atlantic306: Sorry, I didn't understand you Wikipedia-language message: "deprod- villages are generally considered notable as per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES". Thanks. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, was referring to the common outcomes of Articles for Deletion discussions as per WP:NPLACE which says that villages are normally kept. For that reason I believe this article should be kept and improved, there is no time limit on wikipedia. Even if it is just a hamlet they are normally kept. Also, now that the PROD notice has been removed any deletion must be through AFD. thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Atlantic306 Yep, I do understand, however, I just thought that it would be best if we could maybe create articles, then, if multiple people are opposed to its deletion, regarding some other small towns or hamlets in Liechtenstein. Personally, with that knowledge, I would opine that Hinterschellenberg does indeed have a very low population, and generally never met the criteria for creation in the first place. Plus, the page that you cite, while it does support your argument, also states in the relevant section that presumably only any address concerning "areas that [have] a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities", none of which Hinterschellenberg, as of the current circumstances, are, should be retained. In addition, one of my main concerns is the fact that there is no reason why other small locations, many of which indeed have higher populations than Hinterschellenberg does, don't get an article attributed to them, which would just serve to exacerbate the bias, no matter how few people would visit a page like this. Anyways, it's weird to see a village that doesn't exactly exist as a semi-independent, to-dome-degree self-governing settlement among the other small Liechtenstein cities that we see here, such as Rotenboden, Mäls, Masescha, and Mühleholz, which, in my opinion, sort of distorts their status and relative importance, as dictated by the national government. Regards. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And as much as I'd favor including more coverage on underrepresented countries like Liechtenstein, it just doesn't seem practical to me to open nearly a hundred more features for the sake of simply ensuring neutral inclusion when we could otherwise dump this completely ambiguous page where few information could viably exist for our readers, and that receives negligible traffic, anyways. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the caveat about government is for settlements that are not villages whereas villages are generally kept even with a low population. Even individual buildings if they are listed and/or protected as historical monuments are allowed articles if they are covered by reliable sources such as newspapers. If you think larger settlements are more deserving of articles you are welcolme to write articles on them and that would be very helpful. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree but respectfully speaking it isn't one of my priorities, and frankly I'm sorry that I just really don't have the time to donate for so many other articles. My proposition, instead, would be to just remove the singular page for Hinterschellenberg and I think that would be quite a bit more sensible than having to scout and find some other users to make these projects happen. Even then, there's practically nothing to show on those pages, some of which have far less than 100 inhabitants, and no offense intended but isn't much interesting about those places, and there are far larger and more important cities or other locations that are much more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Hinterschellenberg or other similar places. My concern generally isn't about the other larger villages, or officially towns, which, with a few exceptions, are covered quite extensively here. But Hinterschellenberg isn't even considered officially a village or anything by the Liechtenstein government – in the national surveys, for example, they ask for a census subdivision that doesn't ever include Hinterschellenberg. Would there be any particulars in terms of Hinterschellenberg that you would consider to be major enough to otherwise warrant its being kept? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So I get there should sometimes be a few rules regarding this kind of article, but it seems to me a bit unfair that Hinterschellenberg has a page when there are so many other locations – even outside of Liechtenstein, where it's generally a lot lower – left out, and especially as there isn't much to say, at least in comparison to other Liechtenstein villages/attractions. Since we have articles for all of the villages they're seen in so far – Wangerberg, Bendern, Silum, Mäls – and so on, which are official towns, we just don't exactly "need" one for Hinterschellenberg as well. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
Request received to merge articles: Russian Monument (Liechtenstein) into Hinterschellenberg; dated: October 2023. Proposer's Rationale: Both articles cover bassicly the same topic and are both stubs in their own right. No need for them to be separate thus the information can be combined into one. Discuss here. TheBritinator (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support not enough content for a separate article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and done it due to no replies in over 5 months. I will close this discussion now. TheBritinator (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)