Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhmerovsky Forest


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Akhmerovsky Forest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources available. Sources are not available. Text of the article is based on original research of the map. --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm unsure of the reason for deletion. If sources are available then what's the problem? Are you saying it's not notable or simply not a good article? Only the former is a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My misprint. Sources are not available. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Russian version seems to have a few. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where? All sources - maps. --Wanderer777 (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Once again, do you think it's not actually notable? A lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? If I look at the map and write about the hill (or house, or stand alone tree)? Height, distance to the nearest village, area? WP:NOR. --Wanderer777 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Is. it. notable? That is the only criterion for deletion or non-deletion. You still haven't addressed why you think it should be deleted other than having a lack of sources. I'm not saying it is notable. I don't know. But you can't just go on about a lack of sources meaning it isn't notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Decipher. There are no sources, describing the forest. Sources - zero. So this forest nobody cares. It is not notable. --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That, I'm afraid, is flawed logic and not a valid reason to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The proposer has provided no good reason to delete whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where can I challenge the result of the discussion? --Wanderer777 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't jump the gun. There hasn't been a result! The discussion is still open. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently large forests are always kept here, and this is large enough, and has just enough sources to prove it. They're in russian, but there's nothing wring with that for a Russian subject. WP covers the world.  DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 8 March 2014 (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.