Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinterschellenberg

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hinterschellenberg[edit]

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

Hinterschellenberg isn't recognized as an official place, minor and unimportant, undue weight possibly given by creators and not properly indicated on page. Ramires451 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The instructions noted that I should include the version of the nomination on the page. I had put a regular deletion notice on the page late last month, which was removed within a day by Atlantic306. This is the first time I'm putting it on the Articles for Deletion board, however, so I just wrote it into the first step. Sorry if I made a mistake there, by that one – if I did, it was fully unintentional, and an edit that I regret. The user, presumably one with a great dedication to Wikipedia, posted a few times on the relevant talk page and I gave a few reasons for my argument. You can read most of it there, and I won't bother to repeat it and take up a considerable portion of the page. Mainly, though, it's just that Hinterschellenberg, in my opinion, does not meet the criteria for inclusion – and, I would believe, shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's a lot more minor than a few other villages in Liechtenstein, such as Lawena and Valüna, the main difference being that these are actually recognized by the government as actual towns and as official locations within their respecitve municipalities. Hinterschellenberg, while it is relatively large for a hamlet, is not even considered to be an official place, and happens to be pretty much a casual term – albeit one with a little bit of history – used for the equivalent of a fraction of a neighbourhood that a resident just decided to name. It has just over fifty residents, and thus is nowhere near notable enough, as per WP:NGEOTLAND which states that articles should be kept if the settlement is "a legally recognized place" which Hinterschellenberg is not. Frankly, I wouldn't be as staunchly opposed to retaining it if coverage on Wikipedia were less biased, as one of the reasons for my pursuit of this case is the fact that places like Hinterschellenberg are far less important than certain locations that really deserve a page or some more content, especially those outside of Liechtenstein – see aforementioned talk and the snippet right here especially since we would have to give articles for hundreds, and perhaps thousands – though it is, admittedly, unlikely – of even more obscure and less notable others. Most of the points that I made were on the comments listed at the front, as well as a bit here. Not everything was put there, though, so feel free to reply, and they could give more on it, afterwards. By the way, Ramires451 is 98.84.229.179, when I'm not logged in, although many people use it as a shared account. Ramires451 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a bit of easier references, I'm adding a bit of it into this page:

Hey Atlantic306, I noticed that you recently removed my deletion request on the page Hinterschellenberg a small village in Liechtenstein. You did add a comment with your edit, but I didn't understand it. Could you please clarify what you meant (I left a short note on its talk page). I listed as the reason that Hinterschellenberg wasn't an exclusive hamlet, as its population is quite small and isn't recognized as a village – such as Steg, Lawena, Mauren, Nendeln, Bendern, and Ebenholz – by the Liechtenstein government or reputable mapmakers like Collins or Dorling Kindersley. If the page is indeed retained, it should definitely be completely refurbished, updated, refined, and enlarged. And we would have to find editors with the time to create and perfect more than 100 different towns or settlements in order to meet the standards, guidelines, and requirements that Wikipedia has set in terms of notability. Since it's the main reason for proposing the deletion, I would think that it's far more logical that an admittedly unimportant hamlet like Hinterschellenberg not receive a Wikipedia page, at the expense of many more well-known and suitable subjects, especially in other parts of the world where population density is low. If you wouldn't mind, I would at least prefer if we could open a discussion in the area so that more editors – if anyone would like to contribute – could talk about this topic more openly. Thanks for your help and assistance. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, was referring to the common outcomes of Articles for Deletion discussions as per WP:NPLACE which says that villages are normally kept. For that reason I believe this article should be kept and improved, there is no time limit on wikipedia. Even if it is just a hamlet they are normally kept. Also, now that the PROD notice has been removed any deletion must be through AFD. thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I do understand, however, I just thought that it would be best if we could maybe create articles, then, if multiple people are opposed to its deletion, regarding some other small towns or hamlets in Liechtenstein. Personally, with that knowledge, I would opine that Hinterschellenberg does indeed have a very low population, and generally never met the criteria for creation in the first place. Plus, the page that you cite, while it does support your argument, also states in the relevant section that presumably only any address concerning "areas that [have] a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities", none of which Hinterschellenberg, as of the current circumstances, are, should be retained. In addition, one of my main concerns is the fact that there is no reason why other small locations, many of which indeed have higher populations than Hinterschellenberg does, don't get an article attributed to them, which would just serve to exacerbate the bias, no matter how few people would visit a page like this. Anyways, it's weird to see a village that doesn't exactly exist as a semi-independent, to-dome-degree self-governing settlement among the other small Liechtenstein cities that we see here, such as Rotenboden, Mäls, Masescha, and Mühleholz, which, in my opinion, sort of distorts their status and relative importance, as dictated by the national government. Regards. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And as much as I'd favor including more coverage on underrepresented countries like Liechtenstein, it just doesn't seem practical to me to open nearly a hundred more features for the sake of simply ensuring neutral inclusion when we could otherwise dump this completely ambiguous page where few information could viably exist for our readers, and that receives negligible traffic, anyways. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the caveat about government is for settlements that are not villages whereas villages are generally kept even with a low population. Even individual buildings if they are listed and/or protected as historical monuments are allowed articles if they are covered by reliable sources such as newspapers. If you think larger settlements are more deserving of articles you are welcome to write articles on them and that would be very helpful. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree but respectfully speaking it isn't one of my priorities, and frankly I'm sorry that I just really don't have the time to donate for so many other articles. My proposition, instead, would be to just remove the singular page for Hinterschellenberg and I think that would be quite a bit more sensible than having to scout and find some other users to make these projects happen. Even then, there's practically nothing to show on those pages, some of which have far less than 100 inhabitants, and no offense intended but isn't much interesting about those places, and there are far larger and more important cities or other locations that are much more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Hinterschellenberg or other similar places. My concern generally isn't about the other larger villages, or officially towns, which, with a few exceptions, are covered quite extensively here. But Hinterschellenberg isn't even considered officially a village or anything by the Liechtenstein government – in the national surveys, for example, they ask for a census subdivision that doesn't ever include Hinterschellenberg. Would there be any particulars in terms of Hinterschellenberg that you would consider to be major enough to otherwise warrant its being kept? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So I get there should sometimes be a few rules regarding this kind of article, but it seems to me a bit unfair that Hinterschellenberg has a page when there are so many other locations – even outside of Liechtenstein, where it's generally a lot lower – left out, and especially as there isn't much to say, at least in comparison to other Liechtenstein villages/attractions. Since we have articles for all of the villages they're seen in so far – Wangerberg, Bendern, Silum, Mäls – and so on, which are official towns, we just don't exactly "need" one for Hinterschellenberg as well. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that the editor hasn't replied to the thread or on the page since then. Because there was no other person following it, I just decided to add it onto the Articles for Deletion groups. Ramires451 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Essentially the ground for this AfD is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. It's evident that this is a real place, the location not only of the historically important WW2 event described in the article [1] but also the home of a landmark restaurant [2] with its own article in the official national website of Liechtenstein ("the Wirthschaft zum Löwen, which first opened in 1847, in the picturesque village of Hinterschellenberg" [3][4]. Given Wikipedia's gazeteer function, the bar has always been intentionally set very low for articles about geographical places, and this village satisfies those requirements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Arxiloxos, thanks for contributing. I appreciate your opinions on this matter. First off, the book that you mentioned is, if I'm not mistaken, a relatively obscure travel guide to Switzerland that doesn't have any reviews on the Google search that you linked to. Further, this is just a small section of the public preview, which describes an unconfirmed (though I'm not challenging it) restaurant that appears to be in the municipality of Schellenberg. The only notice there is about the Hinterschellenberg bus stop, which, in itself, is actually a fair distance away from the hamlet of Hinterschellenberg itself. I won't dispute the validity of Lonely Planet, but I don't use the website, and it seems like just a bare mention about a few hundred soldiers who, according to the source, likely resided in the area for two years or so before taking off, which I don't think refutes my view that it's not notable enough, especially as an unrecognized and unofficial settlement with a current population of about a hundred, a situation that undoubtedly doesn't concern the sidenote about its accessibility (it's in the north, just like many other towns). I think you've understood from my arguments above, but it's mostly just a matter of unbalanced and unfair (in my opinion) attention from Wikipedia and its community. From all of the sources that I've referenced, it's clear that a major concern of mine is its inclusion in the category of that country's villages, which really distorts its status and puts it as an outlier among a group of actual towns or villages, as dictated by its own governmental authorities. And, just for the record, I never disputed its status as a real location. Ramires451 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep still confirm earlier view that whilst not very notable this village is notable enough for its own article as it is very similar to thousands of other village articles. Improvements are of course welcolme but Wikipedia is an ongoing project and there are no time limits. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 19 December 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.