Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatarbunary


 * 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 of the debate was Keep --JAranda &#124; watz sup 00:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Tatarbunary
article is incomplete, needs deletion or improvement Davidrowe 01:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Please only nominate articles for deletion that you want to be deleted.  If you want an article cleaned up (which includes everything from expansion to outright rewriting), then use one of the wide range of cleanup tools that are available. Uncle G 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Tag for improvement and Keep. Google confirms it as a real place, though nowhere I'd want to holiday ("heavy metals in excess of national limits", "pogroms and disturbances", "lynchings", "beaten to death in police custody")  Real fun place, but real. Ben Aveling
 * Comment: this raises the question of whether an article on a topic that deserves an article should ever be deleted, no matter how awful or short it is. Sometimes editors only seem willing to work on an article when it is threatened with deletion. Usually the article is about something that people feel strongly about, like a school or a city, otherwise they get speedied or deleted through AfD, even when they are notable enough for an article. When an article has to be completely rewritten and the current article doesn't provide any useful content ("X is nice" or something), should it be deleted even when it is a notable topic? -- Kjkolb 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it should be decided on a case by case basis, which is what we're doing. You're free to vote delete if you feel that this page isn't worth a stub. Ben Aveling 05:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That question has long since been answered. For the truly "awful" articles we have the speedy deletion criteria of patent nonsense, user tests, and short articles without context (which includes the "xe is nice." example), so that we can get the redlinks back and start afresh.  If an article (on a topic that satisfies the relevant inclusion criteria) is meaningful and has context, then stub is where one should head.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G 11:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: but when it is something people feel strongly about, like a school or a city, most people won't speedy it or vote delete on AfD no matter how bad it is. I would say that this article was clearly something that would be deleted (it's been cleaned up). Had it not been a city, it would not have been cleaned up and would have been deleted, possibly speedily deleted. In fact, editors are chastised for nominating articles like "X is a high school in Y." Stuff like that would be a slam dunk speedy on almost any other topic. So, should we not nominate schools or cities at all? -- Kjkolb 11:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable town. I've incorporated some detail (Google is your friend), notably http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1998/379813.shtml.  No authority for Alexander the Great (not that I looked very hard) so maybe the original author can come up with some sources. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  12:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Town is notable enough for an article, and has a reportable history. There's also a interwiki link to the Ukrainian language WP. --BillC 15:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. --Metropolitan90 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Preaky 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten. MCB 02:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see a consensus to keep. Any objections to pulling the tag? Ben Aveling 09:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * not hereDavidrowe 09:07, 9 November 2005 (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.