Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goravan Reservation


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Goravan Reservation/ Goravan state nature reservation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable reservation; Google returns less than 159 hits, almost none of which relate to this topic.  I 'mperator 12:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete under A7. Not notable, and doesn't even try to prove notability--Unionhawk Talk 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have nominated it as A7, but it only applies for real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.. Cheers.  I 'mperator 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete under G7 (multiple times). Failing that, delete this article and Goravan state nature reservation (the author's replacement) per nom, Unionhawk, and comment by ImperatorExercitus.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've found some useful refs (under the name "Sands of Goravan"), and will add some of those. Tim Ross   (talk)  14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The references in Goravan state nature reservation establish notability. The article needs inline citations and it has some problems that appear to be due to being written/translated by a nonnative speaker of English, but those aren't reasons to delete it. This ecosystem and its associated protected area surely are notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Goravan State Nature Reservation. Nature Reservations are, I think, inherently notable, but we don't need two articles.  I've added co-ordinates and another reference.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All government-designated natural reservations are notable just like all government-designated historic landmarks are. You would have to prove that it isn't, not challenge others to prove that it is.  The designation alone establishes notability, just like winning a Grammy or a Nobel.  Drawn Some (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Move to Sands of Goravan per this on pg. 194 from the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Rep of Armenia's Third National Report; per this on pg. 14 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; and per this from the grida/UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) website. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hmm... I'm not convinced about the proposed renaming. (Clearly a rename is needed, if only to fix capitalization, but I don't think "Sands of Goravan" is the right name.) All of these names are translations from Armenian, so some variance is to be expected. However, looking at all sources, it appears to me that "Reservation" or "State Reservation" is a part of the official name. The 2004 government of Armenia document on "Specially Protected Nature Areas of Armenia", which looks like the most official source, calls it (on page 45) "Goravan Reservation". Page 194 of the 2006 government of Armenia report that you cite refers to the "'Sands of Goravan' reservation". The UN Economic Commission report you cite actually calls it the "Sands of Goravan Reservation" (the sentence refers to "the Margahovit, Juniper forests, Sands of Goravan and Caucasian Rose-bay Reservations"). Similarly, the UNEP website entry says just "Sands of Goravan", but that's part of a list entitled "List of State Reservations," which indicates to me that "State Reservation" probably is an implied part of the name, making the full name "Sands of Goravan State Reservation." Based on what I've seen, I'd go with Goravan State Reservation or possibly Sands of Goravan State Reservation. Has the article's creator weighed in yet? --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, thanks for all your valuable comments and suggenstions! As Orlady mentioned above, there is indeed no agreement on the English name. The brochure, published by the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia (Khanjyan, Nazik. 2004. Specially protected nature areas of armenia. Ministry of Nature Protection, Rep. Armenia) i referred to, translates it as Goravan Reresvation, but in another place, says Sand of Goravan State Reservation. I guess the most appropriate name would be indeed "Sands of Goravan" State Nature Reservation. Please consider movement if appropriate. Another issue that bothers me, is that there is no agreement on the English name for the former USSR "zakaznik" regime. Such terms as reserve, preserve, reservation, refuge or sanctuary are used interchangeably in numerous sources as well as throughout Wiki. I have a plan to write articles on specially protected nature areas of Armenia and would research this issue more, in order to introduce some unification in this issue. I would really appreciate any help or suggestions.
 * Regarding wheather to Keep or Delete, i strongly believe that any kind of specially protected areas are notable by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be specially protected. Google gives less than 159 hits, since the knowledge about nature in Armenia and in the Caucasus in general is not widely reflected in the Internet. And in my opinion, this is not the reason to delete an article, but on the contrary, keep it and improve it, promoting popularization and dissemination of knowledge which is not yet widely presented on the internet. Thank you once again for you help. --Lusinemarg 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep specially protected areas are indeed always notable.  Any problems, including duplicationofcontent,  can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A low number of google hits is not a valid reason to delete. What really matters is the content of those pages. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (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.