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 delete. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siperia[edit]

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

As the place has burned down almost four years ago it serves no purpose in the wiki. The page seems to be only about the fire that destroyed it, which is not in any way sensible; only sources about the activities in the building are written on their former web page, which is hardly a reliable source by any standards. More importantly the subject matter (controversial community house in Helsinki) has only significance in the fennophone sphere, and specifically nil to petit significance in the anglophone sphere. As such, I am not nominating it up for deletion in the Finnish Wikipedia, but see no reason for an article in the English Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. --hydrox (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that something no longer exists is not a reason for deletion. Consider Carthage. The fact that something is not located in an English-speaking country is also not a reason to delete. Sources in any language are equally valid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.

The article in the Finnish newspaper (translation) appears to be a routine news story about the fire, and I'm not so sure that squat.net is a WP:RS source. Are there any additional sources? — Rankiri (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly – only concrete, reliable source that can be found for the article is about the fire and the end of the activity. However, I suppose the fire itself was not important, but the community activities – however this article will eternally fail to document the activities as there are no contemporary sources available. The article has had a pending request for citation about the activites for 1½ years ([1]). And yes, anything on squat.net is most obviously not reliable – the sites are maintained by various politically motivated organizations that could potentially have a high incentive for manipulation. --hydrox (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage by reliable sources beyond WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is too small and it does not seem to be important enough to remain on Wikipedia. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (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.