Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riistavesi (former municipality)


 * 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) —  The   Magnificentist  08:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Riistavesi (former municipality)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Former municipality with almost 0 notability. Since it's a former one, I am not sure there will be any further notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Strong keep per Notability is not temporary and the generally accepted principle that populated places are presumed notable. We have articles about countries and even whole empires that no longer exist, the abolition of the municipal authority is no reason to remove the article. The Finnish article looks like it has several viable sources that can be used to expand the current stub. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, agree with above that finnish wikiarticle sources can be incorporated into english one, also gmaps shows that it is locality/village here, maybe the lead will need to be amended to "Riistavesi is a village and former municipality in Finland"? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, the town has a church - wikicommons has pictures here and here, and a primary school - "Pupils protest poor indoor air quality in Kuopio schools ... Primary school students and their parents marched out of the Riistavesi and Melalahti schools in Kuopio on Friday". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't see why this wouldn't have notability. Explain? /Julle (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Clearly notable as populated place even if historic. Pam  D  06:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Definitely would appear to have, at the very least, some historical value as a former populated place. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still a populated place, it's only the municipality that has merged with a larger neighbouring local authority. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2017 (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.