Talk:Sätra brunn (spa)

Reasons to not merge
Due to an strange merge between this article and the article "Sätra brunn", it may be worth notice the reasons why to have two articles. Please recognise the difference between the locality Sätra brunn, and the health resort with the same name. There are 1,4 kilometres between them geographicly, but a huge difference in topic. The locality article is based on geography, administration divisions and population, the second about the health resort, that today focuses on the contemporary spa, but has a good potential for a larger history chapter from the swedish article. The difference between this articles is consistent in the native swedish, both norwegian and finnish articles. / -- Gulundin (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "strange" about the merge,, though you might disagree with it. It is quite usual to merge short articles on places within a locality to the main article on the locality, especially if the a parent article is also a stub. To name just one advantage of having aggregated articles rather than many stubs, it reduces the likelihood of articles on minor topics attracting promotional cruft – like this one has. The way different Wikipedias chose to organise the topic has no bearing on it. As you say, they have longer articles, so splitting them makes more sense. Joe Roe (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the previous redirect. I have checked the versions from other wikis, and there's nothing substantial there that indicates this facility is notable enough for its own article. There's no sources, either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, it makes sense to merge when you've deleted 80% of the article first without any good explanation. First make it a stub, and then merge two stubs together. I can't say I agree with the solution, I'll usually convinced with good arguments. / Gulundin (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)