Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Väinameri Conservation Area


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Väinameri Conservation Area

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I think limited-conservation areas (or special conservation areas) (Estonian: hoiualad) shouldn't be presented as a standalone articles in enwiki. At best, we need List of limited-conservation areas in Estonia. In total there are over 319 limited-conservation areas in Estonia. And it seems to be obvious clutter in enwiki, if we do 319 inferior articles about them. Etwiki has done some of them, see et:Kategooria:Eesti hoiualad Estopedist1 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, probably. Well, I'd hesitate to argue with Estonians about Estonian special conservation areas, but something seems wrong here. For one thing, talk of "limited-conservation areas" I find unhelpful as seeming to play down their importance with an incomprehensible phrase. For another, the article, though a stub, is already useful in a) indicating that the area exists b) showing where it is with a helpful map, and c) naming some of the key species that it helps to protect. It would seem a shame to delete all of this only for someone else to start from scratch. Further, I'd have thought the notability of a place like a special conservation area was more or less established, though of course more sourcing would be helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination fails to provide a policy- or guideline-based rationale for deletion, and it's not "obvious clutter". While additional sourcing and expansion would help, at the moment this is a reasonable stub about a geographic area defined by a national government entity. -- Kinu t/c 01:15, 21 May 2022 (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.