Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornik (peak)


 * 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   Speedy Keep as the nomination of a now-blocked sockpuppet, per below. Note that Dat Guy closed this earlier, and I reverted on account of AGF. They had it right the first time. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest keeping the AFD in place, so that we have a record of all this when and if there is another nomination of this article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tornik (peak)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Tornik is part of Zlatibor mountain and not any particular part.There are peaks such as Čigota,small Tornik,Ljuljaš,Tornik...Height top of Tornik not 1502 meters and it is one of the reasons why the page is applied to erase. Height Tornik is not over 2000 meters and it is the norm of high peaks that are supposed to have their own page in relation to the mountains where they are located. In the case of Serbian mountains, all the peaks over 2,000 meters have their own special pages such as Pogled,Pančić's Peak,,Midžor...Tornik is much lower and it is not necessary to allocate a special page of the page Zlatibor. I have therefore submitted an application for deleting pages Tornik. I hope I have your support in deleting unnecessary and redundant pages Tornik. Simply existent page Zlatibor that mentions enhancing the offer is enough. Natasa1991 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ovo u comment kopiraj a u kategorije nisam siguran ali stavi veliko slovo P umesto U koje stoji sad. Natasa1991 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Already done. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - All you need to do is replace "kopiraj komentar ovde" with your reasons for wanting the article deleted, then add ~ to the end. You've done everything else you need to do. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ....And it seems you did that, here. Concerns included notability (peak is not over the 2000 meter standard above which peaks are assumed to be notable) and that the page was redundant. Feel free to correct me if I got it wrong. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I got all confused about this. The user's only edits were taking this page to AfD, so I immediately took it that the user was a puppet. Further, he even blanked the page and replaced it with gibberish. I still am not totally good faithed about this, but I appreciate you cleaning the mess up. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to wonder, myself. But if there are no other delete comments, then a speedy keep on the merits will probably come along soon. Thanks for keeping an eye out. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I apparently was right (See no such user's comment below). Also, edit conflicts for days Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * An AFD page for this article was created by User:Gardasilija on 28th Nov, and subsequently deleted. The exact same deletion rationale was provided as by User:Natasa1991. Since User:Gardasilija was confirmed by checkuser as a sock puppet of User:Parkirovskieng I have blocked User:Natasa1991 for abusing multiple accounts. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and comment:, aka , aka aka... I kind of appreciate your efforts to clean up the articles on Serbian landforms, like  or  but they are for the most part misguided, and you are so persistent about them that your efforts come out as disruptive. 2,000 meters is not a norm for anything, notability and other factors come into play. Yes, Tornik is not a very important peak in the geographical sense, but it is the second-largest ski center in Serbia  and thus pretty notable in tourist and economic sense. We do not delete pages just because they are too short or even because the information there is inaccurate. At best, it makes sense to WP:MERGE this short article into Zlatibor. Or it makes sense to leave it at this stage, maybe someone will expand the article with ski center information. And it also makes sense to move it to Tornik, because the current redirect is barely sensible. But none of this is reason for deletion. Please familiarize yourself with our deletion policy. No such user (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2015 (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.