Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresty

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 the information, since all places are notable, even if their articles are stubs. If the article is possibly ambiguous or misleading, this is an issue that can be sorted out editorially, and not a matter for AfD. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kresty

There is no town in Pskov Oblast called "Kresty". There are four villages by this name, but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the four is meant. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally speaking villages are notable regardless of size per WP:OUTCOMES#places Since it looks like this article was auto-created by a bot, couldn't we just pick one of the other Krestys, fix the location information, and make the article about that? Or make it a disambiguation page? Xymmax (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I could easily make four separate substubs, the places are so minor that I would not be able to add anything beyond the location, district jurisdiction, and possibly a postal code (here is an example of what these substubs would look like). The reason why I am so hesitant to create substubs of this sort is because Russia has over 190,000 rural localities, most of which are virtually unknown and have hardly any information available about them. Why create 190K ugly one-liners when there is virtually zero chance that they are expanded any time soon?

As for turning this into a dab page, MOSDAB currently prohibits creating dabs with red links which are not used in any article. I see someone had enough sense to contest this clause here, but at present having such a dab would be against the MOSDAB guidelines.

Either way, the article in its present form is unsaveable. Even if we make four separate articles, none of them would utilize any information from this one, as this one is way too unspecific.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider makeing a set index article. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles. Taemyr (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, direct me to a description of guidelines for formatting set index articles? From the link you provided, it is still unclear to me how a "Kresty" dab page would look different from a "Kresty" set index article or even what a difference between a "Kresty" dab page and a "Kresty" set index article would be if we had both (apart from the fact that the MOSDAB guidelines do not apply to the latter). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using either of the alternatives suggested by Xymmax. My preference would be to pick a given town and make the article about that. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be suggesting AfD if I could pick one of the villages and make a decent article about it? The places are so small that the best that could be done is something like this. Now, there are 190,000+ rural localities in Russia; do you really want to start creating similar one-liners on each and every one of them? I can do it any day, but I don't think re-typing OKATO is something that would be of great benefit to this encyclopedia...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the answer to that question is YES, because you clearly could if you put the effort in. Just because you don't want to do that doesn't mean that wouldn't be better off with a stub on one of these villages (or a disambig page). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the suggested split. Each of the villages by that name is appropriate for an article DGG (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the above editors, with the split. All (real) places are notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Folks, would you please explain what exactly are you planning to keep? Replacing this page with a disambiguation will erase any existing information on that page (and, since that information is too ambiguous to be useful, it cannot be re-used), so that solution is pretty much the same as deleting the page altogether. So, your votes basically amount to "create a dab page with a bunch of red links". You might want to clarify your comments if this is not what you meant to say.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.