Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aşağıdolay, Bismil

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 keep. Typically articles about villages are kept as long as the requirements of WP:GEOLAND are met, even if the detail provided in the article is minimal. As to the venue question, this is the right place. RfD would be where you go to get a redirect deleted or repointed to a different target, not to decide between a subject being an article or a redirect. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aşağıdolay, Bismil

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a proposal to Redirect Aşağıdolay, Bismil to Bismil, as has been done with all other poorly-sourced stubs in the district. I'm bringing it to AfD since my trim and redirect were reverted.

The article consists mainly of generalizations such as "It mostly shares the same cultural views with the rest of Diyarbakir province as it is just a small settlement around the city"; "The history of neighborhood is connected to the history of the city of Diyarbakir"; and "The economy of settlement mainly depends on the production of primary goods that related to agriculture; growing vegetables and fruits that suits well the climate of the region and cattle-breeding (farming)" which I was unable to verify with Yerelnet (which is a questionable source anyway) and probably wouldn't belong in the article even if they were better sourced.

When we cut the cruft, we're left with "Aşağıdolay is suburban area in Bismil district of Diyarbakır Province, Turkey" sourced to www.bismil.gov.tr. I couldn't find the mention of Aşağıdolay on that site but I assume it's there somewhere. There's no point in maintaining this as a stub; in cases like this it makes more sense to redirect to the district until someone decides to expand it into an article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nom. This article is an example of exactly the kind of article for which the editor reverting the attempts at clean-up was already sanctioned at ANI and which we already held a very well-attended AFD discussion on which concluded that they should be redirected to district level unless an actual reliably-sourced article could be written about them. Reverting attempts at clean-up is some serious "I didn't hear that" behaviour that leaves people with few options other than a further trip to ANI that really shouldn't be necessary and which I hope we can avoid.

Turning to the sourcing presently in the article:

http://www.bismil.gov.tr/ - doesn't mention the subject.
Yerelnet - unreliable algorithm-generated content.
Timeanddate.com - unreliable algorithm-generated content.
haratir.com - unreliable algorithm-generated content.

As it stands this article is basically unsourced. My WP:BEFORE picked up only an apparently algorithm-generated story about a power-outage in a list of places in which Aşağıdolay was included, a bare gazetteer listing from a precursor to the unreliable (for whether a place was populated or not) GEONet Names Server database, and sources showing the same. There is no coverage of any other kind that I could find. FOARP (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the outcome of a much more recent AfD on the same subject where the nom had to backtrack and withdraw(!). Pinging those AfD partipants: @Styyx, Necrothesp, Ingratis, SportingFlyer, and Pharaoh of the Wizards:. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TAGTEAM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASS is a behavioral guideline that you're not only required to follow, you've been up at ANI more than once for not doing so. TAGTEAM is an essay that furthermore doesn't apply here. Ravenswing 15:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about YerelNET. This site was a part of the public sector in Turkey. It was run by tr:Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü, which is owned by the government. However, this institute was closed in 2018, and with it, the website was shut down (you weren't able to access it for some period). Now it's back again and has a different scope than the old one, and no one really knows who runs it as the "About us" section explains the above and only adds that it was re-founded in 2020 by "a non-profit group of education lovers". The current website is unreliable, but, the site you see in the archive is (or rather was) run by the government, making it reliable. Also appears to have a primary school, I'll look to see if I can fix this thing today. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 10:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON. Should anyone care to put the work into turning any of these sub-stubs into actual articles, they can do so, and blessings upon them. Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to have been motivated to do so, a district article is a perfectly proper place for these redirects. That being said, the keep argument presented so far is utterly specious: Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by precedent in a single AfD. It remains, per relevant guidelines and policies, not the responsibility of editors to prove that significant coverage does not exist, but the responsibility of editors who seek to keep the articles to prove that it does.
Further, User:Lugnuts would be well advised to tone down the canvassing and the hostility -- far from it being objectionable to write to his talk page, as he seems to feel it is [1], it was the nom's duty to do so. Nor is it objectionable for a nominator to withdraw the nom if during the course of the AfD the articles are improved enough to pass notability standards; wouldn't we all wish that editors were motivated to properly source articles, and for nominators to graciously acknowledge that when it happened? Ravenswing 15:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - to the parent district. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from AfD reviewer - Hi. In the future please take any controversial or challenged redirects to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion/disagreement on this, since the Yenitaşköprü, Düzce and Paşakonağı, Düzce redirects which I listed on 12 December were procedurally closed and referred to AfD. Pinging Thryduulf who was the closer. At this point I'm in agreement with Thryduulf's reasoning that the question of whether an article should exist is better suited for AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same thing here; I recently took three redirects of mine that had been challenged to RfD, and the somewhat sniffy consensus was that I had no business taking challenged redirects to Redirects for Discussion, and that they needed to go to AfD instead. Ravenswing 02:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The longstanding consensus at WP:RfD is that questions about whether a page should be an article or redirect belong at WP:AFD and the WP:BLAR guideline is explicit about this. RfD absolutely will not delete article content except under two circumstances:

The content would be speedily deleteable as an article
There has been a consensus at AfD or similar suitable location that the content should not be an article.

Neither applies in this case so AfD is the correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources by User:Styyx in the last AfD demonstrating it's legally recognized populated place, thus passing WP:GEOLAND not to mention WP:5PILLARS. I was not canvassed. Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, based on the work done by Styx. As far as I'm aware WP:GEOLAND has not been rewritten with consensus, and this article, even if it is a stub, meets the requirements. There may well be further hardcopy sources that could be added at some point, but there is no time limit. (I was pinged but had the article on my watchlist already). And now I've had a break from present-wrapping I'm going away from here to finish it off. Ingratis (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to have a standalone article, though? Even with Styyx's sourcing it's pretty much just name, location and population which could easily be covered in a table at the district article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:GGT's definitive analysis of the Turkish geostubs at the AfD for Wikipedia:Akuşağı, Baskil. As far as I am concerned this blows all these nominations out of the water.Ingratis (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per my analysis on a separate AfD, which has been referred to above, all Turkish villages currently or historically recognised as such must be considered notable per WP:GEOLAND#1, unless extensive work is carried out to prove otherwise. This settlement was historically recognised as a village, the YerelNET source is sufficient proof of that as it was an official website (note that the current first sentence is misleading, a technical change in status doesn't really change what the place is, it's still practically a village). I can't see any evidence of the expected amount of investigation to overturn the presumption of notability provided by GEOLAND. --GGT (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the encyclopaedic information on this village would be undue in the district article, hence a standalone page is warranted. --GGT (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has a stated population so appears to be legally recognized per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is s discussion on redirecting as the content is better discussed elsewhere, not on whether these are notable under WP:GEOLAND because there is still WP:NOPAGE to consider. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the criteria of WP:GEOLAND so is notable enough to have a page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (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.