Talk:Osinovka

Deprod

I have deprodded this page for the following reasons:

1. Notability criteria do not apply to geographic locations; hence the page cannot be deleted due to the fact that the entries are "unnotable". The only thing that matters is verifiability, and all of the listed places exist (or existed at some point in time).
2. A person looking for "Osinovka" may be looking for either Osinniki (new name of the town), "Osinovka" in Irkusk Oblast (which was merged into Bratsk), or one of many Osinovkas the rural localities. There is no way of predicting what exactly will be searched. Deleting this dab will deprive readers of the information (however limited) with no side benefits whatsoever.
3. The very last entry ("other rural localities") can be easily unbundled.
4. This disambiguation page is a part of a much (much much) larger project on Russian geography. Even when the links are red, they produce backlinks, which are relied upon when categorizing, cross-referencing, and cross-linking other articles.

If you are still unconvinced, I suggest that you AfD this dab. I will then immediately expand the very last entry and create minimal stubs for each of the entries; thus satisfying formal criteria. I am not, however, going to waste time on expanding this now. Please, understand, that Russia has over 160,000 localities (many with identical names), and it is impossible (and impractical) to kill all of the red links at once while this geography project is still in its initial phases of categorizing/cross-linking. Please let me know if you have further questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we could redirect it to Osinniki, another ridiculous stub, and have a dab message at the top pointing to another one of those places if an article is ever created. There is no use for this page, really. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree there is no use. The page does what it is supposed to—it disambiguates between identical titles. Just because at the moment it has red links and points to a stub is no reason to delete it, as all entries are entirely valid (and should and will eventually have full-size articles). Why are you so insistent on getting rid of this dab? What will that accomplish? How exactly will its deletion aid readers? What harm does it do in its present form?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Then redirect this to Osinniki and have a disambiguation link. Feel free to recreate this as a page when another is created. Even then, a message at the top of the page can be for multiple titles. As of now, this is absolutely useless. Create those redlinks soon, then, if this should really stay. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why to Osinniki? It's by no means any more special than any of the other current entries, which is why this dab was created in the first place! The bottom line is that this dab is useful in that it informs readers about the fact that multiple places with the same names exist (even though not all of them have articles yet) without implying that any one of those places is somehow more important than the others by redirecting to it by default (that would be misleading). As for "create those links soon", have you even read what I wrote above? When one is organizing 160,000+ entries with the intention to streamline workflow in future, having to jump here and there to fulfill requests like yours (not to mention that you are yet to provide a reason why a redirect would be more beneficial to readers as opposed to the current state of the matters) is very distracting. Why don't you create those stubs, since these red links obviously bother you that much? I do have a certain plan about how the project should proceed, and if you are itching to jump ahead here or elsewhere, be my guest and make improvements now rather than later. Just think: if I had to redirect all potential dabs to existing pages, then when other articles/stubs are ready I would have to return to each and every one of the cases to revert the redirect, to reinstate the dab, and to mend all the backlinks. What a waste of time would that be! I just don't see any benefit of such approach nor do we have enough manpower to proceed like that! Why not make/keep the dab now and let all the links fall in place as the articles are written? This has worked marvelously so far—because it adds no extra work (see, for example, Moskovsky, which used to be all-red for quite a while, but is gradually turning blue)!

Anyway, like I said, I am going to write the stubs only if you AfD this page; just to save it. Your choice is to either color the red links yourself, to AfD this dab (to make me color them myself now), or to just drop this. I think it's obvious which of these courses are the most productive, but the final decision, of course, is yours. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)