Nosurahu : Struggling to find 3 sources not some WMF project or copying off it, not 1 source of in-depth coverage at all.  Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Estonia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of islands of Estonia .  Actually many one-sentence articles in Category:Islands of Estonia should be redirected to the aforementioned list-- Estopedist1 ( talk ) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I will be happy to use AWB to redirect the other useless non-notable one-liners in the category.  Reywas92 Talk 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of islands of Estonia .  But, I do not agree that AWB should be used as a blanket as suggested by Reywas92 , as some of the "non-notable one-liners in the category" of articles are actually notable and can be enlarged with sources.  ExRat ( talk ) 07:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please identify them then.  Anyone is welcome to restore from a redirect and add sources.  It's a utter joke to have dozens of these junk one-liners and to think mass-produced pages need individualized discussion.  I would not redirect any pages with sources, only those like this one or Sokulaid with no content or sourcing at all.  Reywas92 Talk 13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or, conversely, you can identify which ones you wish to redirect then; and anyone is welcome to enlarge an article and add sources to articles that are already created and are notable instead of a mass redirect to all island articles which you deem are "non-notable".  While I agree that many of these articles can be redirected, I disagree that a blanket mass redirect is in order.  As I stated, many of these articles that were created (most, seemingly, by User:NielsenGW ), are actually notable per WP:GEONATURAL .  Even Sokulaid is possibly notable per WP:GEONATURAL , as it has a listing at EELIS Infoleht.  So, yes, discussions do need to take place.  I'm not opposed to redirects when appropriate.  I am opposed to mass redirects without proper discussions.  ExRat ( talk ) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with mass redirect.  The linked to policy says that "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."  Many of these islands clearly (according to this) should not have their own articles.  The listing is not "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article".  Obviously, a few of these articles actually are notable, I think that anything where at least 2 non-WMF sources can be found through google could be redirected without a discussion each and every time.  @ ExRat Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 01:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This particular discussion should be focused on Nosurahu .  A mass redirect should be an entirely separate discussion, not decided on this article's deletion discussion page.  ExRat ( talk ) 02:02, 27 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect