- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 13:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vach ( | 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)
District of a German town. As such, likely notable and probably also sourceable, see the German language version. But the article has remained unsourced despite a "unsourced" tag since 2009. Unsourced content must either be sourced or deleted, see WP:V, a core policy. Since nobody has provided sources for at least 12 years, the verifiability policy now requires deletion or draftification. Sandstein 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect or stubify (with a source confirming existence) are the obvious
WP:ATD here; both are preferable to immediate deletion or
slow deletiondraftification. I don't see a good reason for this to be at AFD. — Kusma ( talk) 11:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC) - keep It's evident from the German article that this is/was a town with a long history. The nominator deserves a
WP:SOFIXIT
WP:TROUT for not simply grabbing a cite from the other version, but since I've done so I don't see deletion as an outcome, and I don't think redirecting to Fürth makes sense in any case.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not just going to "grab a cite". That's sloppy editing. Citing sources is done as part of the article-writing process: the source must be reliable, available, must be read by the writer, and reflect the article content. Just copy-pasting citations makes a mockery of our verifiability policy. That's why I think that long unsourced blocks of text are best deleted and rewritten from scratch with citations. Sandstein 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Immediate Keep. A deletion discussion for this article at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach was just closed yesterday with consensus to restore the article about the town. I assumed that @
Sandstein: was not aware of that discussion and am puzzled to see that he was actually its closer.
Jahaza (
talk)
00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- That discussion was about a different article: an article about some blog called "The Vach" that the article about the district was overwritten with. The discussion did not concern the article abut the district. When I restored that article, I noticed its deficiency and therefore started this second AfD. Sandstein 07:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Given it was a separate settlement until 1972 it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. And the German article is well-sourced. AfD is to determine notability of the topic, not quality of the article or its sourcing. This is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Necrothesp. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:36, 24 December 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.
- 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. RL0919 ( talk) 13:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vach ( | 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)
District of a German town. As such, likely notable and probably also sourceable, see the German language version. But the article has remained unsourced despite a "unsourced" tag since 2009. Unsourced content must either be sourced or deleted, see WP:V, a core policy. Since nobody has provided sources for at least 12 years, the verifiability policy now requires deletion or draftification. Sandstein 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect or stubify (with a source confirming existence) are the obvious
WP:ATD here; both are preferable to immediate deletion or
slow deletiondraftification. I don't see a good reason for this to be at AFD. — Kusma ( talk) 11:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC) - keep It's evident from the German article that this is/was a town with a long history. The nominator deserves a
WP:SOFIXIT
WP:TROUT for not simply grabbing a cite from the other version, but since I've done so I don't see deletion as an outcome, and I don't think redirecting to Fürth makes sense in any case.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not just going to "grab a cite". That's sloppy editing. Citing sources is done as part of the article-writing process: the source must be reliable, available, must be read by the writer, and reflect the article content. Just copy-pasting citations makes a mockery of our verifiability policy. That's why I think that long unsourced blocks of text are best deleted and rewritten from scratch with citations. Sandstein 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Immediate Keep. A deletion discussion for this article at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach was just closed yesterday with consensus to restore the article about the town. I assumed that @
Sandstein: was not aware of that discussion and am puzzled to see that he was actually its closer.
Jahaza (
talk)
00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- That discussion was about a different article: an article about some blog called "The Vach" that the article about the district was overwritten with. The discussion did not concern the article abut the district. When I restored that article, I noticed its deficiency and therefore started this second AfD. Sandstein 07:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Given it was a separate settlement until 1972 it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. And the German article is well-sourced. AfD is to determine notability of the topic, not quality of the article or its sourcing. This is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Necrothesp. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:36, 24 December 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.