Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ostrovul Ciocănești

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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cajole) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrovul Ciocănești

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not strike me as fulfilling WP:NGEO nor even WP:N. Even the Romanian version does not seem to include "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". I don't see how this article would ever progress beyond the stub it currently is. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 02:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is governmentally recognized as a Special Protection Area, which seems to be a EU-wide scheme; whether it will ever progess beyond a stub is no reason to delete the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy which states that being a Special Protection Area makes a place notable enough to warrant its own article. Any data on these things can also go in a list or table.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, but we don't have a policy for every contingency. I suspect that some might say WP:GEOLAND applies if it has received a European Union recognition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to agree with Carlos in this case and say that the EU designation means that WP:GEOLAND does apply. Certainly, others may disagree and indeed its section on "Named natural features" -- which this would be, as an unpopulated (by people) place -- is very open to interpretation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comments above spell out why it should be kept quite nicely; I can do no better than to agree with them entirely. Also, "it'll always be a stub" is not a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the Bulgarian wiki article shows some ways in which it could grow, right now, and there are more: an island like this in Europe must have a human history of settlement, no? And then there are the questions around the species of animals that are protected there now, and the process by which this area was submitted for and received EU-designation. I don't agree with the "always a stub" position, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2016 (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.