- 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 redirect to Påryd. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vörehult ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real assertion of notability, no sigcov to be found online and Google Books only returns statistical lists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Vörehult appears along with Kanagärde and Mjödehult on lists. Each is recognised by a road sign along the 521 road south of the village of Påryd. Vörehult features on a boulder climbing website.
[1]. It has a few houses, but as the nominator says doesn't appear to pass GNG or NPLACE. Could be mentioned in the
Påryd article and redirected there if a note is added about the boulder climbing, but needs a second source.
Rupples (
talk)
11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being
WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of
Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to
Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agree there would need to be better sources for the boulder climbing. Having searched for sources and found nothing of note, I'm not pushing for a redirect. Rupples ( talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being
WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of
Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to
Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no sources. No real relevance. I could be changing my opinion if a source is provided. With as well a small expansion of information. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep From my before search, a very very small place, but people have been born and lived there, and has a road sign, so passes the very low bar of
WP:GEOLAND. Actually one of my stranger before searches as it's mostly individual people from there have actually come up, along with a rock to boulder. Just need one clear source to
WP:V.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, but they do prove people think it's currently an active place of note, which is what we're trying to record here. SportingFlyer T· C 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kalmar Municipality which looks to be the lowest active level of self-government. It is a real place, but I can't find reliable sources giving details. And I am not seeing evidence of statistical or other information that would justify a separate article in the absence of sources. In particular the current municipal website implies that there is no administration on the district or parish level which might group Vörehult with Påryd or another nearby settlement with clearer notability. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But looking at this one sentence article, a village with 9 inhabitants, it's hard to understand a Keep. Are there additional sources from your BEFORE search you could bring up here or place in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's hard to understand a keep only if you ignore
WP:GEOLAND's contention that populated places are notable.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
09:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting "presumed notable" into "notable" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. ("Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village,
Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a delete.
Uncle G (
talk)
12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If the source is from 1958. What date is the source? Things may have altered since, e.g. new residences built and the status of the place changed. However, the article needs sources as being named on a map doesn't establish notability. I'm torn between redirect and delete; on balance leaning delete unless a source is found to verify the place's standing. Rupples ( talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- 1959. It's the Sveriges Bebyggelse for Kalmar län ( OCLC 747336336). I couldn't even find anything else. Uncle G ( talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting "presumed notable" into "notable" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. ("Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village,
Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a delete.
Uncle G (
talk)
12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Redirect to the parish would have been my preference here, but as others have pointed out there doesn't appear to be a lower level of administration than the municipality. The Kalmar Municipality article doesn't reference this place nor many others in the municipality viewable on maps. A possibility would be to expand the Localities table in Kalmar Municipality by including Vörehult, coordinates and a verified population figure. At present, the population of 9 inhabitants stated in the article is unsourced, undated and possibly original research. Rupples ( talk) 12:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Påryd. Swedish Wikipedia has an image showing districts within Kalmar Municipality:
[2] This source places Vörehult within Karlslunda distrikt (on a mapped boundary),
[3]. Karslunda district is based around Påryd, the only sizable settlement but there isn't an article on the district on this Wikipedia. Given this, I think it reasonable to redirect to Påryd by including a heading in that article for Karslunda district and listing Vörehult and other localities thereunder. Karslunda district looks in area to be the equivalent of a civil parish in England, but I don't know what the administrative function of Karslunda district is, if any. See
Districts of Sweden#Other examples. Here's another mapped boundary source showing Vörehult within Karslunda district:
[4].
Rupples (
talk)
18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- No objections to a redirect to Påryd per Rupples who was able to find the district maps I couldn't track down. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Påryd. The only hits I get for Vörehult are in church records or family pages in local newspapers (as a place were people were born). Draken Bowser ( talk) 21:00, 1 March 2024 (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.
- 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 redirect to Påryd. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vörehult ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real assertion of notability, no sigcov to be found online and Google Books only returns statistical lists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Vörehult appears along with Kanagärde and Mjödehult on lists. Each is recognised by a road sign along the 521 road south of the village of Påryd. Vörehult features on a boulder climbing website.
[1]. It has a few houses, but as the nominator says doesn't appear to pass GNG or NPLACE. Could be mentioned in the
Påryd article and redirected there if a note is added about the boulder climbing, but needs a second source.
Rupples (
talk)
11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being
WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of
Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to
Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agree there would need to be better sources for the boulder climbing. Having searched for sources and found nothing of note, I'm not pushing for a redirect. Rupples ( talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being
WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of
Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to
Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no sources. No real relevance. I could be changing my opinion if a source is provided. With as well a small expansion of information. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep From my before search, a very very small place, but people have been born and lived there, and has a road sign, so passes the very low bar of
WP:GEOLAND. Actually one of my stranger before searches as it's mostly individual people from there have actually come up, along with a rock to boulder. Just need one clear source to
WP:V.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, but they do prove people think it's currently an active place of note, which is what we're trying to record here. SportingFlyer T· C 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kalmar Municipality which looks to be the lowest active level of self-government. It is a real place, but I can't find reliable sources giving details. And I am not seeing evidence of statistical or other information that would justify a separate article in the absence of sources. In particular the current municipal website implies that there is no administration on the district or parish level which might group Vörehult with Påryd or another nearby settlement with clearer notability. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But looking at this one sentence article, a village with 9 inhabitants, it's hard to understand a Keep. Are there additional sources from your BEFORE search you could bring up here or place in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's hard to understand a keep only if you ignore
WP:GEOLAND's contention that populated places are notable.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
09:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting "presumed notable" into "notable" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. ("Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village,
Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a delete.
Uncle G (
talk)
12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If the source is from 1958. What date is the source? Things may have altered since, e.g. new residences built and the status of the place changed. However, the article needs sources as being named on a map doesn't establish notability. I'm torn between redirect and delete; on balance leaning delete unless a source is found to verify the place's standing. Rupples ( talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- 1959. It's the Sveriges Bebyggelse for Kalmar län ( OCLC 747336336). I couldn't even find anything else. Uncle G ( talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting "presumed notable" into "notable" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. ("Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village,
Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a delete.
Uncle G (
talk)
12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Redirect to the parish would have been my preference here, but as others have pointed out there doesn't appear to be a lower level of administration than the municipality. The Kalmar Municipality article doesn't reference this place nor many others in the municipality viewable on maps. A possibility would be to expand the Localities table in Kalmar Municipality by including Vörehult, coordinates and a verified population figure. At present, the population of 9 inhabitants stated in the article is unsourced, undated and possibly original research. Rupples ( talk) 12:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Påryd. Swedish Wikipedia has an image showing districts within Kalmar Municipality:
[2] This source places Vörehult within Karlslunda distrikt (on a mapped boundary),
[3]. Karslunda district is based around Påryd, the only sizable settlement but there isn't an article on the district on this Wikipedia. Given this, I think it reasonable to redirect to Påryd by including a heading in that article for Karslunda district and listing Vörehult and other localities thereunder. Karslunda district looks in area to be the equivalent of a civil parish in England, but I don't know what the administrative function of Karslunda district is, if any. See
Districts of Sweden#Other examples. Here's another mapped boundary source showing Vörehult within Karslunda district:
[4].
Rupples (
talk)
18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- No objections to a redirect to Påryd per Rupples who was able to find the district maps I couldn't track down. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Påryd. The only hits I get for Vörehult are in church records or family pages in local newspapers (as a place were people were born). Draken Bowser ( talk) 21:00, 1 March 2024 (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.