Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saaranpaskantamasaari


 * 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   no consensus to delete. Merge proposal may be discussed at the article talkpage. Skomorokh 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Saaranpaskantamasaari

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

Non-notable island. A total of 59 Google hits to various web forums discussing humorous-sounding place names. Couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources at all. Jafeluv (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  —Jafeluv (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since all geographic places are exempt from the notability guideline, the only way this article will get deleted is if it cannot pass WP:Verifiability. I tried to find a source that would at least back up the coordinates given in the article, but could not. Reserving judgement for now. Abductive (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the guidelines for anything named on a map are pretty loose. And Saaranpaskantamasaari turns up on Google Maps, although only faintly and only in satellite view. Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you're referring to this? I have to admit that I wasn't aware of that. I still think that the coverage is pretty thin for a stand-alone article, though. Jafeluv (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be real, here is a nice map from the National Land Survey of Finland. Abductive (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, since it lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Merge to the new article on the lake. If we are granting inherent notability to otherwise non-notable "geographical features", then considerNotability (geography) which says "If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article." It goes on to recommend merging. This one looks like it is a few meters by a few meters,and per the Finnish Wikipedia has an area of only 120 square meters. It does not justify a standalone article per the guidelines of the English Wikipedia, if the article would be just a gazeteer entry giving its coordinates. In this case, it could be merged with other named features in the body of water surrounding it, Lake Onkamojärvi, which does not even have its own article in the English Wikipedia, but does in the Finnish Wikipedia  .   Edison (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A Google machine translation of the Finnish Wikipedia article says there are 22 islands in the lake and merely lists them. The English translations of the islands Finnish names include "Sarah's Bullshit Tama Island" as the translation of "Saaranpaskantamasaari," as well as "Joke Island." Edison (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for machine translation – I took your hint and translated the article (see Onkamojärvi). If I had to translate the name of the island, it would be something like "island that was shat by Sarah" (Saaran paskantama saari). Saara is a common Finnish girl's name, equivalent to the English Sarah. Jafeluv (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge it to the lake article, since it lacks written sources. Use the inline coordinate icon for it and be sure to mention the funny meaning of the name. Abductive (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge I guess this is an issue of "obscure but maybe notable." I don't know extent of presumed notability for geo-spots but from above quote this may be a bit thin. However, a little digging short of OR may make for an interesting entry ( with a name like that there have to be some news paper stories somewhere at some time). Digging is not OR until you put your own ideas into the sources you have found. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge to Onkamojärvi.  We don't have an article about Lake Onkamojarvi, and I suspect that this is here only because the name and the original research guess at what it "might mean" are (debatably) funny.  Although inhabited places are inherently notable, it doesn't mean that every river branch, pond, or piece of land surrounded by a lake gets the same treatment.  In looking at the Google map, it appears that (a) this is too small to show up on the map and (b) if it's located where Google says it is, it can't be more than 20 yards from the lake shore.  Is it still and island if the water level goes down?  Would there be an article if this was called "Sarah's Isle" instead of Saaran paskan tamassaari?  I don't think so.  Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have an article about Onkamojärvi, but yes, pretty much the only "notable" (real world definition) thing about this island is its funny name. Jafeluv (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that, changing !vote to merge. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it was easy to miss – the article didn't even exist until yesterday, and it was only after your comment when it occurred to me that Onkamojarvi and Lake Onkamojarvi should redirect to that article as well :P Jafeluv (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Named geographic features are inherently notable.  The National Land Survey of Finland clearly shows the island on its maps, so its existence and location at least are verifiable. I can't speak to the etymology, however. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merge beacuse putting island information in a lake article breaks the categorization scheme. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, a lake article can definitely have information on islands without having to be categorized as an island article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, real place, verified to exist, therefore notable. J I P  | Talk 05:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : I guess at some point this would become a collection of indiscrimininate facts or trivia. Certainly to a modern US audience the name is funny and it isn't OR to find sources which presumably exist. How did the name manage to become official? My mom lives in a rural area with a mailing address and mail box on a "real" road but there is a short section of unpaved "road" that amounts to a shared driveway between her house and the road. Someone named it and I can find it on goog maps, should I write a piece on that road? If someone can find a story on the "funny name" - maybe just determine that it isn't all that funny to the inhabitants and neighbors- it seems worth noting at least in a related article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting from policy The specific rule on notability is drawn from the essay wp:Notability (geography). The way that I read it (and it's open to interpretation), it doesn't mean that all named geographic features are inherently notable, only those that have inhabitants; and it doesn't mean that a real place that is verified to exist is automatically notable.  Neither does it mean that articles on uninhabited places are prohibited, only that they have to demonstrate notability in the usual way.  Argue this policy as you will, I think that it means that this little baseball diamond  sized chunk of land has to demonstrate more notability than being a name on a map:
 * "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low..."; "
 * "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however. If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article. Rather than deletion, these articles should be merged and redirected to a more general geographic article. For example, an article on a river island where there is no information available except the name and the location should probably redirect to the article on the river."
 * If I've left out something relevant, the link is there to see the essay in its entirety. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Verifiable places are inherently notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No, they are not. My house is a "verifiable place." But it does not need a Wikipedia article.Edison (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A measly 59 Google search results clearly indicates its lack of notability. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of Google hits is seldom an accurate indicator of notability. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. But should a topic be very notable, it would be mentioned and published in many more sources, and this topic seems non-notable because it's an orphan-like topic, with very few references about it from other sources. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Real, verifiable places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the policy is quoted above. No matter how many people say that every named location on Earth is entitled to an article, nobody has ever shown where that's written.  Verifiable inhabited places are inherently notable.  Crappy little chunks of land with cute names and not enough room to build a house upon have to demonstrate notability like anyone else.  Mandsford (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the geographic place has to be inhabited (or have once been inhabited) to qualify for automatic notability. Abductive (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability (geography) is an essay, not a policy. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations) instead. Abductive (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations) isn't policy either. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has a more complete picture of the debate. Notability itself is not a policy either. Abductive (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * StephenG is correct that these are essays, rather than set policy; one might describe these as customs rather than laws. However, they are the only word on the subject of how to deal with an article about a place.  But for those essays, there would be no argument about any place being inherently notable.  Over the course of time, it's come to be accepted that most "legally recognized" inhabited places are notable.  A village, or a census-designated populated place, meets this requirement.  Regardless of what the essay says about inhabited locations, however, the inherent notability does not pass to a stream, a cove, a rock formation, a named hill, etc.  In this instance, the lake is large enough to be receive significant coverage, and we have a place for this to be merged.  Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or at least merge, per above. Pzrmd (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Legalisms  : Certainly if you are going to appeal to strict legal issues, the essays rank below policies and even guidelines AFAIK. I guess if we could appeal to an even broader doc on intended audience and purpose that may help. I continue to try a "wiki activism" approach not from the bench but the keyboard to invent new laws (LOL) that makes up a notion of "obscure but notable." If you find a topic that may be of interest to a researcher who would resort to google- a school kid, professionals in many fields, etc- to look up a topic it won't be something "well covered" in reliable media for which the top google hits would suffice. The curated encyclopedia would seem to be most important where google fails. So, I guess I'd personally tend to be inclusive and encourage digging. However, without reliable secondary sources, there isn't much that can be reasonably used in an article. I guess merge may be more apropos than keep but remember the premise here is that the odd name is the reason anyone cares. If you believe that the only claim to notability is something on the order of junior high humour, you have to either find more or include trivia or find the story behind it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing here is that even though the only reason the island is known by anyone who's not from Salla is its amusing name, speculation about the meaning of the name is just original research and shouldn't go in the article without reliable sources – irrespective of whether the island article is kept because its name and coordinates are verifiable from a map. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Jafeluv (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there even one reliable source in Finnish which says that the weird name is remarkable or notable? If not, then being named "Sarah's shit island" does not make something notable enough to have an article in this Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is original synthesis bathroom humor, from "It is famous mainly for its name" (Famous? Who says?) to the name "which is ambiguous" (Ambiguous? Who says?)  "but seems to mean 'the island where Saara defecated'"  (snicker snicker) because "paska" is slang for "shit" (he said "shit", snicker snicker).  This is supposed to be encyclopedic?  This crap (pun intended) can put in Lake Onkomajarvi (or at least its article) which is also a funny name.  Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is only a few paces across, with an area of 120 sq meters. With a bit of rock removal, it could be submerged in the lake. Edison (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On the map it appears to be at least 40 m across. The area is probably closer to 1200 m2. (That's a lot of feces! :) --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Uninhabited geographic features of truly minimal size do not really merit separate articles. An article for the lake would make more  sense. DGG (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What information would you suggest merging? The location of the island is already on the lake article, and the speculation about the name is just original research unless someone somehow finds a reliable source that discusses it (which I doubt). Jafeluv (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG isn't the only person to suggest a merge, of course; and I recognize that Jafeluv created the article about Lake Onkomajarvi (greatly appreciated) and mentioned all relevant content (the silly speculation about the origin of the name isn't worth incorporating). Call it a merge, redirect, whatever, but I think that we're suggesting that  Saaranpaskantamasaari can be clicked upon to lead to Onkomajarvi.  Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from article creator I had been putting off creating this article for roughly 2 years because I knew I would have trouble passing off the etymology as verifiable. A friend convinced me that linking to the Finnish wiktionary would satisfy the verifiability of the etymology, but it appears this is not so.  Fair enough.  But I have done all I can for this article and will not be able to expand it anymore if it is kept or merged.  That will have to be done by someone who lives in Finland and has access to some sort of toponym book, if even this island is listed.


 * Also, I don't really understand the merge arguments. If the island isn't notable enough to stand alone, wouldn't we be able to use the same argument to remove it from the article about the lake?  Are there different levels of notability, lower values of which can permit something to be a section within an article, while higher values permit a separate article?  Also, I'm not sure what exactly makes the lake any more notable than the island; if this is subject to deletion, wouldn't the lake article be too? (Though I note that we allow unreferenced articles for lakes that are barely any larger than this island.)  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea behind the merge is twofold. First, aside from its name, there is really nothing special about this island out of the others in the lake. In fact, some of the other islands mark the Finnish-Russian boundary. Second, in the lake's article, we can mention the alleged meaning of the name, and put a "citation needed" tag on it. We can't really tag a whole article; the sources aren't reliable. Abductive (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "[W]e can mention the alleged meaning of the name, and put a 'citation needed' tag on it" – umm, no. If it can't be attributed to a reliable source, it doesn't belong in the article. (See also Jimbo's opinion on the subject.) Jafeluv (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The island exists under that name, and the sources are mostly in Finnish, so a cn tag would be appropriate. Imagine there was an island in Lake Huron called "Monkeydeath Isle", but nobody knows why it is called that. There is no doubt that this is a weird name and that it seems to mean monkeydeath. So the article would just say that nobody knows how it came to be named that. Abductive (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with saying what the island is called. What's wrong is adding speculation on what the name means, without attributing it to a reliable source. (I think that the current translation is incorrect anyway; see the talk page for details.) Even if Wiktionary (which is not a reliable source) says that "saari" means "island" an "paska" means "shit", that doesn't mean that we're justified in saying "the island's name may mean 'the island where Saara defecated'". We are required by policy to attribute "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" to a reliable source. If that cannot be done, the material does not belong in Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Parallel: There's a inhabited district in Turku called Pallivaha. I could write an article on it, and state that the name means "testicle wax" in Finnish, citing Wiktionary entries for palli and vaha as the "source". However, that would be both original research (since there are no reliable sources the translation could be attributed to) and incorrect (since that's not really what the place name means). Having that in the article, even if tagged with citation needed, would be worse than having no information at all, since most readers don't check the sources anyway and take anything written in an encyclopaedia as a fact until proven otherwise. There's a reason verifiability is one of our core content policies. Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the article about the lake would qualify for deletion under the same criteria that are being applied to the article about this island, and so merging the two articles wouldn't really solve the problem. Am I mistaken?  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Onkamojärvi has quite a few reliable sources; . Abductive  (reasoning) 21:12, 2 August 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.