Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houses in Finland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 17:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Poss org research? Does not establish to much on houses in Finland that cant not be said about other houses around the world. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Finland. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Replace Finland with Minnesota and the article still holds true, except for possibly the part about the glazed windows. I don't see how anything described here would be different if it were applied to houses built in any other cold climate. android↔talk 05:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's only because "minne sota" means "war to where?" in Finnish. =) — JIP | Talk 09:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Seriously? It means "sky-tinted water" in the language of the native peoples that live here; IIRC, it was the Ojibwe. android↔talk 13:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously, it does mean "war to where?" in Finnish. Of course, it was named after the Ojibwe phrase. The Finnish meaning is pure coincidence. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I knew that; I meant to say "it was the Ojibwe who provided the name for the state" but I conveniently left off that last part... Funny coincidence, though. :o) android↔talk 14:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- (Completely off topic, but see Minnesota River for the name origin. It came from the Dakota Sioux language, not Ojib.) Jonathunder 04:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- So "to where?" means "water" and "war" means "sky-tinted". Gotcha. — JIP | Talk 19:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (Completely off topic, but see Minnesota River for the name origin. It came from the Dakota Sioux language, not Ojib.) Jonathunder 04:13, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- Yeah, I knew that; I meant to say "it was the Ojibwe who provided the name for the state" but I conveniently left off that last part... Funny coincidence, though. :o) android↔talk 14:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously, it does mean "war to where?" in Finnish. Of course, it was named after the Ojibwe phrase. The Finnish meaning is pure coincidence. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Seriously? It means "sky-tinted water" in the language of the native peoples that live here; IIRC, it was the Ojibwe. android↔talk 13:56, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's only because "minne sota" means "war to where?" in Finnish. =) — JIP | Talk 09:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Kappa 10:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Replace Finland with Germany and the part about the glazed windows also holds true. vlad_mv 14:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - David Gerard 19:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete article name (unless we want Trees in Belgium and Grass in Australia as well). Merge content, if not already done so. Radiant_* 19:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No Grass in Australia for wikipedia, ever? and deletionists talk about "consensus". Kappa 21:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I believe consensus holds that Australian grass is pretty much similar to grass anywhere else. Would you care to explain what your point is with this and other veiled statements of discontent you have made over the past week? It's not that I feel particularly attacked by what you say, it's just that I'm entirely unsure what you are trying to accomplish. Radiant_* 21:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Grass is an important plant, and Australia is a large region. If you want to restrict wikipedia that much, you will have to do it by force of numbers, not by persuasion. Kappa 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and the combination of two important topics is not in and of itself important. This has nothing to do with restricting WikiPedia, it has to do with common sense. I dare you to write an interesting article about Milk in Spain, Oaks in Russia and/or Sidewalks on Cyprus that isn't redundant with either or both of the parent articles. I would not a priori oppose any of them but it seems obvious that, if created, they would quickly be removed for being unable to have meaningful content. Radiant_* 08:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm a Finn myself, and rather proud of my country, and houses sure are useful things, but I still don't see anything particularly encyclopedic in this article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- OK wikipedia can never hope to tell me how much milk is produced in Spain, by what kinds of animals and what particular varieties of cow, sheep etc, how much is processed into cheese and yogurt, how much is imported/exported, how much is pasteurised and when, what companies distribute it, how it is packaged and marketed, how much is drunk by children and adults, and if they drink it at breakfast or with other meals, whether it is typically added to tea, coffee, or other popular drinks, whether they prefer full-cream or skimmed milk, etc, the history of all these things, and their current trends... But maybe one day a more useful open encyclopedia will come along, and whatever information WP has managed to retain can be transferred into that. Kappa 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly, because such detailed statistics as you're talking about would be compiled in a primary source, and thus belong in WikiSource. And parts of it, such as whether milk is added to tea, would be original research if anyone had bothered to do it. You're welcome to prove me wrong - just write the article. Radiant_* 13:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a statistics bureau. I'm sure statistics about milk production in Spain, or grass in Australia, is useful information to a lot of people, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. — JIP | Talk 13:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about statistics. Kappa 20:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's true, but I still have to agree with User:Radiant!. There's nothing encyclopedic about grass in Australia, milk in Spain, or houses in Finland that isn't encyclopedic about grass, milk or houses in general. Would you want hundreds of articles saying "Grass in eastern Katajanokka is pretty much the same as grass everywhere else in Helsinki" and nothing else? — JIP | Talk 10:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your definition of 'encyclopedic' is obviously very different from mine. Of course if you make the focus small enough there isn't much difference from one place to another, but there are very important and specific differences between milk in Spain and milk in the rest of Europe, to say nothing of grass in Australia and in the rest of the world. Kappa 03:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Really? What sort of important and specific differences are they, then? — JIP | Talk 08:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your definition of 'encyclopedic' is obviously very different from mine. Of course if you make the focus small enough there isn't much difference from one place to another, but there are very important and specific differences between milk in Spain and milk in the rest of Europe, to say nothing of grass in Australia and in the rest of the world. Kappa 03:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's true, but I still have to agree with User:Radiant!. There's nothing encyclopedic about grass in Australia, milk in Spain, or houses in Finland that isn't encyclopedic about grass, milk or houses in general. Would you want hundreds of articles saying "Grass in eastern Katajanokka is pretty much the same as grass everywhere else in Helsinki" and nothing else? — JIP | Talk 10:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about statistics. Kappa 20:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and the combination of two important topics is not in and of itself important. This has nothing to do with restricting WikiPedia, it has to do with common sense. I dare you to write an interesting article about Milk in Spain, Oaks in Russia and/or Sidewalks on Cyprus that isn't redundant with either or both of the parent articles. I would not a priori oppose any of them but it seems obvious that, if created, they would quickly be removed for being unable to have meaningful content. Radiant_* 08:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Grass is an important plant, and Australia is a large region. If you want to restrict wikipedia that much, you will have to do it by force of numbers, not by persuasion. Kappa 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I believe consensus holds that Australian grass is pretty much similar to grass anywhere else. Would you care to explain what your point is with this and other veiled statements of discontent you have made over the past week? It's not that I feel particularly attacked by what you say, it's just that I'm entirely unsure what you are trying to accomplish. Radiant_* 21:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No Grass in Australia for wikipedia, ever? and deletionists talk about "consensus". Kappa 21:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete tells nothing that is specific to Finnish housing. Mgm|(talk) 10:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unencyclopedic.
- Delete, housecruft. ComCat 01:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An article on different methods of housing construction in different climates around the world, or perhaps even within Europe, could be interesting and encyclopedic. This just isn't. Jonathunder 16:25, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
- Frankly, the Monty Python song about Finland is more informative than this article. Delete. Edeans 03:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.