Akuşağı, Baskil

Akuşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Aladikme, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alangören, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Altunuşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aşağıkuluşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beşbölük, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bilaluşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bozoğlak, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deliktaş, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Demirlibahçe, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doğancık, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Düğüntepe, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Işıklar, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kadıköy, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Karaali, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I redirected these geostubs sourced to Koyumuz per these discussions [1][2][3], but was reverted because they have a second source which adds the phrase "The village is populated by Kurds." I propose that these articles be redirected to Baskil district as well, since the additional information is extremely trivial and is already found in a table at the target article. As always I have no objection to keeping any of these if reliable sources and non-trivial content are added. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all 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:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, you've only pinged the participants who !voted Keep. This looks a lot like canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me and posting on my talkpage. I've never met a more disingenuous user than you. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging additional participants @Darth Mike and FOARP:. I disagree that participants in a different AfD should be notified, but if we're going to do it then we need to notify all of them. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep per previous outcome" is only valid is these articles are similarly expanded; without such expansion, this !vote has no legs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per Lugnuts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect All per the previous, very well-attended AFD and ANI discussions on this exact topic. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay I'm gonna be quite honest about this, it's starting to piss me off. I can already tell this is going to end up as a trainwreck. People here seem to think that all Turkish mahalles/villages get about the same coverage, which is false. If you take a look at the Düzce District template, you can see that while going from top to bottom, I've converted Akyazı into an article, but Altınpınar and Asar are still a redirect, and then Aydınpınar is converted as well. This notability shit differs from village to village (I though people knew this but oh well). So you can't take the consensus of an AfD about Mahalles in Aziziye and apply them to every fucking Turkish geostub in existence and proceed to hope for the best and you can never, ever see an AfD and immediately !vote "Redirect all" without even an hour passing of the nomination. I doubt a WP:BEFORE was done and also doubt anyone else made a search. This is should probably be closed as a procedural keep before we turn this into a clusterfuck of a situation. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all So you're concerned about a quick "redirect all" !vote but not that all of these were made within minutes of each other themselves? Where was the BEFORE when these were created to have better sources than a weather site and a list of names in a footnote? The clusterfuck is that users mass-create thousands of pages at once without prior approval of sources and methods – in violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation – but then the rest of us are expected to do the work of finding sources or discussing them one at a time. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, where all content can be better presented for our readers. Irrespective of any notability and sourcing issues, there is entirely insufficient content to justify standalone articles here. No prejudice to restoring as standalone articles on a case-by-case basis as and when such content can be created from adequate reliable sources. Perhaps a wider-audience RFC is needed to establish a community consensus solution to dealing with these minimally sourced "this place exists" geo-stubs rather than circling round the redirect-revert-AFD tree for each one (or batch), with almost identical comments being made every time by the same contributors? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from a neutral outsider. There seems to be a huge discrepancy between policy on locations in the US and policy on locations everywhere else at AfD. When yet another railway siding with a grain silo in Illinois gets nominated for deletion, there's a good-natured hunt in ancient newspapers, and if someone finds a reference that a genuine human once called this home, the article is kept, even if the reference is merely a newspaper clipping that a little old lady gave Nowhereville as her address when reporting a lost dog. Nothing needs to have happened there; just it has to have been, once, an inhabited place, even if only inhabited by one person who never did anything notable. Meanwhile whole villages and towns elsewhere are deleted even though it's blatantly obvious they're inhabited places (and it's utterly hopeless trying to retain an article on a very substantial new town in the middle east). I have no idea what our policy on locations actually is, (and nor apparently does anyone else), because it seems to vary with the nationality of the location. It would be great if things were more consistent, and a consistent policy might save a lot of ill-feeling. For my part, I agree with Wjemather Elemimele (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, as Wjemather states. Should anyone care to put the work into turning any of these sub-stubs into actual articles, they can do so. Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be 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 [4], 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 15:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the nom has been asked multiple times not to post on my talkpage, it's probably wise not to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... so if you'd happen to find, down the road, that these articles were deleted and/or redirected without your knowledge or input, you'd be fine with that? Ravenswing 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they wouldn't be without my knowledge. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing Just going to cut you off for "Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do". I've done this a week ago for geostubs of Düzce, I'm currently doing this for the above and even have done it for Akuşağı and Aladikme. It doesn't take more than 30 minutes per article, that's why I'm finding these immediate "Redirect all"s unconstructive... ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Feel free to ping me when you're done, I'll take a look at the articles, and if satisfied that the sources you find contribute significant coverage to the subjects (as opposed to the refbombing that all too often crown such efforts), I'll change my vote. As far as you finding this unconstructive, well: had you done any work improving these articles before this AfD? (That being said, the nomination was scarcely more knee-jerk than the speed with which Lugnuts created these sub-stubs, something for which he's been admonished at ANI already [5]. Ravenswing 15:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't know every Turkish village out of the top of my head, so I see this stuff only when they land on WP:DSTURKEY. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - to the parent district. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to the parent district, per above. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Here comes the mass ping: Dlthewave, FOARP, Reywas92, Wjemather, Elemimele, Ravenswing, GoodDay and Nigej! All have been expanded, some obviously less than others (as I expected). Akuşağı, Aladikme, Altunuşağı, Beşbölük, Doğancık, Kadıköy and Karaali have clear legal recognition (expanded with text showing government projects). Bilaluşağı is also reasonably expanded with the university source and 2000 census of the governement (though I was told you can't use a census to establish legal recognition, which I find stupid, but policy is policy). All of the articles now have at least 3 sources. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]