Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Višnjica

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. — CharlotteWebb 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Višnjica

The subject of the article does meet the guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mere/Redirect to Belgrade.--TBCΦtalk? 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep along lines of WP:CSB - If this were an Australian suburb or American neighbourhood, this debate wouldn't be taking place - indeed, several of those have made good or featured article status. Orderinchaos78 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true. I have nominated American, London and Mexican etc. neighborhoods in the past. This is a weak argument to keep a non-notable subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep — Non notable, however I agree with Orderinchaos' comment above. Cites two sources though they are both (Serbian?) books. --RazorICEtalkC@ 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A mention in a book or two does not make something notable since we have no idea of the extent or the writing about this subject in the book. This article needs to assert that notability, which it does not. I agree with TBCΦtalk? however, that the article could be merged with Belgrade. -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Orderinchaos78. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Orderinchaos78 Circumspect 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. Punkmorten 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - looks just like a million other articles about various towns, I don't see the issue - Arch NME 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a town. It is now an "urban neighborhood of Belgrade." -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability is not judged by how many online articles in English there are about a subject. A major neighbourhood of a world city is notable, and especially one referred to in two books. --Charlene 13:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to where it is written that "a major neighborhood of a world city is notable". WP:LOCAL tends to disagree. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as there is absolutely no reason for deletion...? Are you going to delete all neighborhoods of Belgrade because they are stubs at the moment? As for Višnjica, it is noted in all Serbian encyclopaedias (general, geographical) and merging with Belgrade would probably be the most improper thing to do (just like all the other articles on neighborhoods). Anyway, the first thing on the WP:LOCAL says it is not a policy or guideline, just opinions PajaBG 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the non-notable neighborhoods and suburbs should be deleted. They can be stubs, but the stub needs to assert notability, which this article does not. Sometimes opinions are all we have to base a judgement on. This discussion itself is just a listing of opinions and a decision will be made on it. -Nv8200p talk 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How someone not living in a city can know what's notable and non-notable in it. Notable, cited, indexed, credited...if someone spends the rest of his life reading only things he already knows it will be good to memorize them but how will he ever learn anything new? Nobody needs to log on to Wikipedia to check if the Earth is round PajaBG 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Flat Earth Society may disagree with you on checking if the Earth is round, but that is their opinion -70.113.57.85 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh right...my deepest appologies :o) PajaBG 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone convince me that our "sources" aren't just street maps. They're not available in any library whose catalogue I checked online, including the Serbian Co-operative Online Bibliographic System & Services. Huon 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine that if I could speak Serbian I would have no problems finding materials. Incidentally, the article on sr.wikipedia is even more stubbish than ours, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. It's not hard finding articles on neighbourhoods and suburbs of Australian/British/American cities that are far worse than this one (and utterly *un*referenced, too). Orderinchaos78 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to cities, towns and neighborhoods, reliable street maps are excellent sources of their existance, size, location, etc.. --Oakshade 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, street maps would be just as excellent sources for individual streets. Somehow I doubt you claim that. To cite WP:N: Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Unless some non-trivial source is found (whether in Serbian or English is secondary), we have to consider this neighbourhood non-notable. Huon 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, actually. I'm not saying just becuase something is on a map it's automatically notable. A reliable map will confirm, say, a side street being "just a side-street" as well as a signifficant area being so. --Oakshade 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It is referenced in the Mala Prosvetina Enciklopedija, Third edition (1985), Volume I, ISBN 86-07-00001-2, No 1 Serbian general encyclopaedia and in Enciklopedijski geografski leksikon Jugoslavije, by Svjetlost-Sarajevo, ISBN 86-01-02651-6 References are added to the page. Street maps are excellent for the detailed view and also would be great sources for the notable streets, why not? In addition, googling for Visnjica Belgrade gives 17,800 and for Visnjica Beograd 28,000 hits. Dorian Hawkmoon has 11,300 :o) (btw, the books are great). PajaBG 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per Orderinchaos78. It's a signifficant neighborhood in an major city, not some housing project or the like. Inherently notable. There's no reason to delete it. --Oakshade 04:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Change opoinion to keep per PajaBG's new sources. Huon 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pavel Vozenilek 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Villages with a much smaller population in Britain are notable enough to be included. This includes places that have eben absorbed into an adjacent town or city. The English language WP is too English language centred, and we should welcome articles on foreign places that are as notable as those in English-speaking countries. Peterkingiron 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep" As a big city neighborhood this is notable and sources are not to be judge by language. Poeloq 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are so many reasons this ought to be kept: It was a former suburb before some reorganization took place (like Encino, California and the multitude of other parts of Los Angeles), it is the subject of multiple independent notations (more than most of the schools we keep), and it's home to 7000 people, thousands more than other places we keep, and finally, the systemic bias toward English sources (just look at the repeated use of Google searches in English using Latin characters) needs to be counterbalanced by a real effort to keep articles with non-English sources. I can't read Serbian, but hey that's MY problem... Carlossuarez46 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIAS and Carlossuarez46. A lack of English-language sources is no reason to delete an otherwise valid article. -- Black Falcon 21:46, 7 March 2007 (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.