Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voika


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Voika

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another one of these crappy articles. Mass created by a bot. All Starzynka articles should be evaluated. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've undone 's own unexplained non-admin "keep" closure,see WP:BADNAC. If there is no further comment, this AfD may be closed by somebody else as withdrawn.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It shows up on a map in the very least. I'm not seeing any issue or 'crappiness' to be found; it's boilerplate telling us where it is.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it's a populated place, verified by the Estonian census here (search for Voika in the second box): SportingFlyer  talk  22:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per GEOLAND and precedent cf. WP:MAPOUTCOMES. A source has been added. Sam Sailor 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added the population and a reference for it that I found on the Estonian Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. All recognised settlements are notable per WP:GEOLAND. Being a stub is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop & Think! - WP:GEOLAND goes to notability.
 * WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, not a policy.
 * - WP:GEOLAND says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
 * Let's look at the core of it, i.e: "typically presumed to be notable"
 * There's nothing typical about how this article came to exist.
 * - It was created by Starzynka, without honest or deep thought about notability of the creation.
 * But let's pretend to ignore that, and read "typically presumed to be notable" as if it says "always presumed to be notable".
 * - The whole point of having an AfD, is to investigate an article's merit. That is, not to go by presumption, but to actually go locate & :evaluate evidence of merit.
 * In short:
 * - A guideline is not policy.
 * - The word "typically" is not a synonym for "always".
 * - The word "presumed" is not a synonym for "assured".
 * DexterPointy (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize that WP:Notability is itself a Guideline, so your "policy" arguments based on notability below are nothing self-condictory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing notable about this; it has a zipcode, and multiple weather forecasts are available. From https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voika (and more): It had a population of 203 (at end of 2011), there's a tiny local history museum, and it no longer has a railroad stop (removed in 2008). In the village is "Voika Kabelimägi", which is noted as an archaeological site, by virtue of it being a former cemetery. If this obscure village is notable, then I'll consider writing an article about "The cotton club" (aka. the drawer where I keep my underwear) DexterPointy (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a gazetteer per the notability of geographic features page. Since this is a verified place, the presumption here is absolutely correct. Compare to a number of AfDs regarding Somali populated places which could not be verified. SportingFlyer  talk  02:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. All villages are notable per GEOLAND. There is a presumption that sufficient offline sources exist. This presumption appears to be a good one, since I happen to know for a fact that many local history books about certain parts of Britain, never mind Estonia, have never been digitised. Bear in mind that digitised online books tend to come from large university libraries in the USA, with all the systematic biases that implies. No comment on whether GNG is satisfied in this case. James500 (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You just voted Keep on presumption alone! The same guideline also says: "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.". --DexterPointy (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, meaning that per GEOLAND if a populated place exists, an article is proper even when sourcing is minimal, insignificant, or in a different language. Based on Estonian census results and other sources including your own comments, Voika clearly is a real village - and the fact this was called into question have made the stub a better article than other villages in its vicinity. For instance, see: [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Borani_Village] [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bonkuwal] or even [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orbitello,_Kansas] and as an example of a GEOLAND article failing WP:V . SportingFlyer  talk  09:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia is NOT a gazetteer. The 1'st pillar of WP says:
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia : Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
 * Combing features of a gazetteer into an article is absolutely fine (and should be done), but an article MUST become encyclopedic: An article with no prospect of ever becoming an encyclopedic article, shall be deleted. Note: WP:NOTEVERYTHING is policy! -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It can never be true to say that there is no prospect of developing a stub about a settlement into an encyclopaedic article. We have many thousands of good articles about small villages. If you're just saying this because it's in Estonia then that is in breach of WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It most certainly can be true: If no evidence of notability exist, then no such evidence can ever be provided. There is a requirement for evidence to be produced, and the requirement is systemic to everything in the Universe, not just Estonia. I have looked and have not managed to find the teapot, and if you insist that it's really there, then you got the burden of providing the evidence. -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a gazetteer: please read the second sentence of Notability (geographic features). SportingFlyer  talk  21:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per precedent and WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2018 (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.