Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye

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 redirect to Aziziye. While bulk nominations like this are frequently inappropriate, these nominations do seem appropriate given the history behind their creation and the content they contain. This is affirmed because, on the whole, most participants also discuss them as a group as opposed to making distinctions between individual members. As such a group close is appropriate.

Those suggesting these articles should be kept, beyond those suggesting a procedural keep addressed above, do so on the basis that the articles satisfy the geographic features notability guideline. Those suggesting that these articles be deleted suggest that the term that applies to these places does not meet the guideline and that there are not other available sources that would allow them to meet the GNG. Many of these editors also suggest that these topics may be adequately covered as part of another article rather than by having a standalone article.

A key element of this discussion is how to translate the Turkish word which labels them. Ultimately there is no consensus about what this translation should be and this proves a key dividing line between those suggesting they be kept as independent articles and those who suggest they be deleted (or redirected). Given this lack of consensus and the general lack of other sourcing or means to suggest notability, the weighted consensus of participants is to redirect these articles.

A final (non-binding) suggestion: some participants did suggest that some of these places have adequate sourcing to justify independent articles. To the extent that this is true, it might be easier to demonstrate this initially by expanding coverage at Aziziye before restoring an independent article. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ağcakent, Aziziye

[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)

Batch nomination of mass-created village stubs in Aziziye district. These fail WP:NGEO, which specifically excludes tables from establishing notability, and in any case an article that consists entirely of "X is a neighbourhood in the Aziziye District of Erzurum Province in Turkey" makes more sense as a list entry at Aziziye. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete All or Redirect all to the district - These articles were mass-created by Lugnuts through WP:MEATBOT-style editing without any consensus having formed first in favour of making them. When later discussed at Lugnut's most recent ANI discussion the clear consensus was against their being made, nor was there any consensus in favour when this was discussed at WP:TURKEY, yet Lugnuts is still making them now. The original bad referencing (which at least contained a population) has been replaced with a table/map (a source that WP:GEOLAND excludes) and hence the article contains no actual information about the supposed neighbourhood. It is far from clear whether Turkish Mahalles are actually legally-recognised populated places - the term translates as "neighbourhood" or "quarter". This (admittedly old) academic text describes them as being sub-village units, and not necessarily being actual settlements (see the section on "scattered pattern mahalles") and also as potentially being very small urban divisions. If you look at page 51 of the same book you can see estimates as high as 70,000 for the total number of Mahalle and similar units in Turkey, many of which have tiny (possibly zero?) populations. Even the source used on the page does not explicitly describe them as Mahalle - instead it just gives a count for the number of Mahalle in the district and then a list of names with the same number, making it unclear whether this is actually what is described.

In summary - fails WP:GEOLAND as it is sourced only to a map/table, is unclear whether it even is populated (no population is described), is a neighbourhood, provides no evidence of legal recognition as required for presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND, has no evidence of WP:GNG being passed, its creation was a failure of WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT, and consensus has been against the creation of these one-sentence single-source Geostubs when we've discussed them at ANI. FOARP (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - A search for articles using the stock phrase "X is a neighbourhood in the Y district of Z province in Turkey" returns 945 hits, all identical, all lacking a WP:GEOLAND-passing citation, all created since 24 February 2021, all created in ~1 hour sessions at a rate of typically 1 every 90 seconds, all by Lugnuts. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:5P - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (my emphasis), and they all meet WP:GEOLAND as being populated places in Turkey. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Combines features of" =/= "is". Wiki has features of a gazeteer, but unlike, say, GNIS or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, it is not a directory of place-names/addresses regardless of notability. No evidence is provided of them being populated, much less legally-recognised populated places as required by WP:GEOLAND. It is unclear that a mahalle is in every case a meaningful populated community equivalent to a village - the text cited above describes four types of mahelle of which only one is a "village-type". I am also concerned that many of the names above appear to be common Turkish surnames. After the Iranian "village" case we should be cautious. I also do not understand why you are still creating these articles after everything that was said at your ANI. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:5P, WP:GEOLAND and Yukarıyeniköy, Refahiye which is exactly the same type of article about a Turkish village and has, as you can see, been expanded. The articles in this AFD are all capable of being expanded in the same way, in due course, using similar sources. Lugnuts does not need any prior consensus before creating articles, per WP:BOLD. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that No Great Shaker (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Yukarıyeniköy, Refahiye is an interesting article because the person who expanded it got rid of the source Lugnuts used to create it saying it was unreliable. That source is the same type of source used for all of the above articles. That a few percent of these articles can be rescued does not justify their mass-creation. WP:MASSCREATION is pretty clear that consensus is needed before mass-creating articles, and WP:MEATBOT answers any point about bots not being used. WP:BOLD means not seeking a consensus first, not going against a consensus that has already formed. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get your facts right because the source removed by Nyxaros was the one I mistakenly added to the article, not the one used by Lugnuts which is still there and can be used again, as can the sources found by Nyxaros. The ANI discussion you mention was not concluded so there hasn't been a consensus. How have you calculated "a few percent" and can we see have the precise result of your calculation? WP:MASSCREATION and WP:MEATBOT are parts of the BOT policy, not WP:EDIT which is the site's policy for editing by humans. This site is an encyclopaedia per WP:5P1 and information about villages in Turkey constitutes useful and valid knowledge which should be included especially as the articles can be expanded, as at Yukarıyeniköy. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEATBOT is clear - if you edit like a bot (e.g., by copying and pasting exactly the same sentence with a word changed into multiple articles at a rate of one every 90 seconds) then the bot policy applies to what you are doing. As I said, it is a source that was removed of the same unreliable type as used by Lugnuts to create these articles - even Lugnuts acknowledged that their original source was unreliable, the problem is that they've replaced it with an equally bad source (a map/table which is excluded by WP:GEOLAND). "A few percent" is supported by the search above - you cannot just throw a telephone directory at other editors and say "here, some of these people are notable". Not to put too fine a point on this, but the ANI discussion was hatted due to Lugnuts posting a very concerning message on their talk page, it was very clear at that point what the outcome was going to be given all the !votes telling him to stop at that point, and calling for their autopatrolled status to be removed due to their actions. Lugnuts' situation invites sympathy, but is not a free pass to continue mass-creating articles. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - also, these are not villages, not even according to the articles themselves. These are Mahalles, which means quarter/neighbourhood. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:FOARP no they would be called villages in English, e.g. see the photos here. Neighbourhood or quarter may be a literal translation but it is not a good one. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivar. To be fair, I think they would more accurately be termed hamlets. We have an abundance of those in England which are article subjects. One such place I know is Stodday, and I can't see that article ever being raised at AFD so why are its Turkish equivalents being raised here? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has upwards of 70,000 such units according to this book, the grand total of all populated places of any kind in the UK (which has a similar population to Turkey) including those with no legal recognition is 49,000. Also Wikipedia:WAX.

And where is the evidence that these Mahelle have any meaningful legal recognition? We are risking a case like the Iranian "village" case. FOARP (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not going to go through every article (doubt the nom did), but looking at a sample of the Turkish-language equivalent articles these appear to be villages or townships of ~100 people. E.g. the second one on the list apparently has a distinct culture originating from the Black Sea. [1]. If these were small villages in a country that spoke English I'm sure there would be no doubt about an article existing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: [2] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ivar. The Turkish WP also has a template for places in Aziziye so there must be plenty of sourced information there which can be translated and used here. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do routinely delete similar stubs for places in the United States which were created by an editor who went through a government database assuming that every "populated place" listing was a legally-recognized unincorporated community. Many, such as Rice Fork Summer Homes, California and Ettawa Springs, California (currently at AfD), are nothing more than resorts or groups of summer homes that fail WP:GEOLAND. Many also end being listed within a county-level article instead of being kept as a stub. The California GNIS cleanup task force has been working on this for nearly a year. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / redirect Y'all should stop relying too much on Google Translate. Mahalle's meanings differ from "street" to "district". It entirely depends on context. The articles need expansion, yes, but so far I haven't seen a valid reason for their deletion. ภץאคгöร 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per WP:TNT On the basis of the one link given as a source, they all fail verification: following the link goes to the same page for every one of them, which shows a map of a small town which obviously cannot contain all of these articles even as individual houses. I am not impressed by the parallel Turkish articles, which have the flavor of similar mass production. It's not good enough to say "they could be expanded," because at the moment any "expansion" is essentially to write the whole thing over from scratch, using some other source with actual information about the place. At present the only usable information in the articles, maybe, is the name. At the moment, given the outcomes of reviews of similar geostubs over the years, it is reasonable to assume that the information is completely untrustworthy and that there is no reason to believe that any of these places exist, and we shouldn't have articles which nobody can tell whether they are at all true. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:TNT is an essay only, and it is about "for pages that are beyond fixing, it may be better to start from scratch", which is not the actual case here. We can say "completely untrustworthy" and "there is no reason to believe that any of these places exist" about any geographic article that lacks sources and/or sufficient information. ภץאคгöร 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - TNT is a pretty persuasive essay for anyone who's ever had to deal with one of these mass Geostub creation cases. All it takes is one misunderstood source and (like in the Dr Blofeld and C46 cases) we're looking at many thousands of problematic articles. At some point it just isn't OK for an editor to say "here, here's 30,000+ geostubs each of which took me 90 seconds to make, some of them are notable - it's your job to spend a week on each of them finding out which". No pal, you should have done that first. FOARP (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Geographic articles which lack sources get deleted, though, if we can't verify them, which is currently the case for these villages based on the sourcing we have available. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is fallacious to claim that an essay is irrelevant simply because it is not tagged as a policy of guideline. Arguments have merit (or lack it) regardless of community approbation. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are places in the district, not in the town; their combined population is 9,186 (the town's populations is 8,673; the district's population is 63,366). Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I would support redirecting all to the list at Aziziye, per this discussion at Wikiproject Turkey. Per WP:NOPAGE, notability does not guarantee an article, and many topics are best covered as a list entry. In my opinion it's a better practice to present these as a list and create standalone articles when they are ready to be expanded, rather than keeping dozens of stubs on the premise that they might be expanded in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What this highlights is we've already discussed this at WP:TURKEY AND at WP:ANI and continuing to create these one-sentence-zero-content articles is some serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. FOARP (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dlthewave and Mangoe. Creation of microstub articles really doesn't help the encyclopaedia. The link they're referenced to is blocked by my internet provider for security reasons, but assuming this goes to a map, maps are not reliable sources for determining whether WP:GEOLAND is indeed met, so we can't even WP:Verify if they're legally recognised populated places. My vote would be different if these hadn't been batch created and we had to determine the notability of a specific place, but there's enough doubt about the information, sourcing, and whether they actually meet the SNG that we can't really keep these as standalone articles . SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a combination map/table. The locations of about 16 of the 72 “neighbourhoods” in the Aziziye municipality are shown on the map and the names of all 72 “neighbourhoods” are shown in the table, but only their names. This is exactly the situation that the explicit exclusion of maps/tables from WP:Geoland was designed to address: “This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.” FOARP (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge all We have features of a gazetteer, but that does not mean we are a gazetteer (whatever that means exactly), nor does it mean we are mandated to have separate pages for formulaic single-sentence pages. Not opposed to individual recreation and expansion if substantive sources exist, but I see no need for mass-creation like this. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do want to have content about these places, and the question is really whether this content is better served in separate articles or in a single place. The current setup is definitely not optimal: as far as I can see, these articles are all batch-created and contain – apart from an underpopulated infobox, a reference and a navbox – a single sentence which reads X is a neighbourhood in the Aziziye District of Erzurum Province in Turkey. This is effectively only saying that the places exist and that they're neighbourhoods. Collectively, the information in all these articles is equivalent to a list of 54 items, which is scattered across 54 pages. In my opinion, it will be better if this content is presented in a list in the district article, with the individual pages then redirected to it.
An issue with the existing articles is that they describe those places as neighbourhoods – I don't see anything in the source saying what those places are – in fact, they appear to be more like hamlets – so the description is effectively WP:OR. This favours redirecting: it will be easier to clarify and explain the status of those places in the single article where they're listed, instead of having to edit all 54 individual articles.
On an unrelated note, it appears that the creator has sent invitations for this AfD to several editors, at least one of whom [3] has previously expressed support for his microstubs, but has neglected to notify any of those who have been more critical. – Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:CANVASS behaviour really is too much. They only notified sympathetic editors (i.e., people who have expanded his articles). I've raised an ANI report on it. FOARP (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Aziziye; these are only sourced to a government website which merely attests to their existence. There are ~70 subdivisions of Aziziye, a district of 40000 people. Until there are other sources, it does no good to have separate articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. GEOLAND is such a dumb policy that allows practically any place where people may or may not have lived to have an article, but these don't even meet that, and that's saying something. Other viewers of this AfD should view WP:NOA for the probable reason on why these one-line stubs keep getting created in the first place, and I won't make any accusation but I think everyone can kind of see the reason why these exist, and it may not be because the author wants to constructively write about Azizkye. versacespace leave a message! 01:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VersaceSpace I suggest you retract that aspersion on Lugnuts' motives. He has created 89,391 articles in 1,328,025 total edits which means he spends the vast majority of his time editing articles that already exist. He is an outstanding contributor who strives to build the encyclopaedia. The standard of his written work is good, so he won't often be copyedited or reverted. I don't believe anyone chases edit or creation targets. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We literally just had an ANI regarding ~5,000+ articles, in one single area of the articles they've created, written based on a single source that Lugnuts themselves acknowledged as unreliable. I would suggest that this possibly indicates that their conduct sometimes falls below the standard you describe here. FOARP (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly want your pound of flesh, son. Also, are you on commission when you WP:BLUDGEON any conversation and use the term "MEATBOT" ad nauseam? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: how is it bludgeoning to respond to !votes? he's not repeating the same thing, he's sharing why he disagrees, that's how we discuss, is it not? versacespace leave a message! 14:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because FOARP uses those two ludicrous terms in every single ANI or AFD discussion he joins, that's why? Or hadn't you noticed? Perhaps you also haven't noticed the request above that you personally should retract your latest stupid aspersion about Lugnuts before it is drawn to the attention of a sysop. You have already been blocked once, even though you are still a relatively new editor, and you might find that a second block will be a final one. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Well considering you've taken me to both ANI and SPI and neither of those are going the way you intended them to, maybe you're not the best person to be taking advice from. versacespace leave a message! 17:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The complaint is that these stubs have been created in a mechanical, rote way. But the nomination has been made in a similar way so this is a case of WP:POT. For example, the list above repeats the first item, Ağcakent, Aziziye, so that it has been nominated twice. It seems apparent that these are all valid places in Turkey and so deletion would simply invite re-creation – intensifying the disruption contrary to WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the parties are actually interested in Turkey then they should please improve the pages per our policy WP:IMPERFECT which states that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." See also WP:TRAINWRECK. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that duplicate entry, I've removed it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nearly every single deleted article is welcome to be recreated should their subjects ever become notable. as is the case with these articles nominated for deletion, there's a big difference between deleting and salting. these articles are all "X is a neighbourhood in Y". That is it. Why wouldn't you want to combine these all? versacespace leave a message! 11:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint is that these stubs create the illusion of content on a topic where there is none. All of the information provided could be better presented at Aziziye. Surely they are reasonable redirects, but articles? Why have them separate from one topic which could be more easily expanded? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The stubs aren't in disarray, don't need a mass cleanup, and were just created. The tr.wiki stubs seem to have, on average, more text than the en.wiki versions, and different sources, which may be useful in expanding here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at some of the Turkish articles. While I don't read the language, it doesn't take any great fluency to work out that they say very little more than the English articles, and seem to contain no significant extra information. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you though? Every 2nd or 3rd tr article I checked have a tidbit of historical information, like tr:Ahırcık, Aziziye, tr:Başçakmak, Aziziye, tr:Dağdagül, Aziziye, tr:Halilkaya, Aziziye, etc. I'm not vouching for the claims, by any means, but for someone interested in the subject, they can investigate further, try the additional links there, and potentially expand the English versions. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish language stubs are all sourced to the same website, clicking on the source leads to an archive page which doesn't discuss the town, the directory is no longer on that website, and doing a specific search to try to find the old pages brings up text which translates to "There is not enough data / information about Başçakmak Neighborhood in Erzurum city." SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (procedural), another case of a mass afd nomination with waaaaayyy too many articles, at over 50, say 5mins each for even the most rudimentary of searches, will take over 4 hours, suggest this is closed and nominator can make afds of say 8 to 10 over the next week or so. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a wp:trainwreck, they all have the same format, are sourced by the same table, are nominated for the same reason, are all of the same topic which can easily be made into a list combining all the towns versacespace leave a message! 13:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that individual checks are necessary for this type of redirect, since this is a question of whether to cover the current content as individual articles or as a list. –dlthewave ☎ 15:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the "procedural keep" vote of @Coolabahapple:, and request the closer disregard it as in violation of policy. All of these articles were very recently created by Lugnuts, have one source, no other substantial edits, and would be redirected to the same target Aziziye. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to further the AFD backlog these creations have already made by encouraging up to SEVENTY FIVE separate discussions. Procedurally, this must be one discussion. If you have any sourcing about these places that is not about the area as a whole, present it now, or re-create the article after it is redirected. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the procedural keep. These are all functionally the same article based on the source and creation. If there's one that's notable, there shouldn't be an issue with discussing it, or with recreating it if better sourcing's available. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment let's compare Ağcakent, Aziziye to Leopold Township, Perry County, Indiana, a geographic entity in the US of "similar" prominence. Leopold Township's article has minimal sourced content and substantial problems with being up-to-date: the 2010 US census data for location and population, a local history book for one sentence on the name of the township, an unsourced list of cemeteries, a few external links (one of which now contains information in Spanish on asthma) and various higher-level divisions (school districts, state house seat data has been incorrect for ten years) that contain the township. Ağcakent has none of that content. There is no population and no GPS coordinates; it is unclear whether this is a stand-alone village or a part of a built-up town. There is no sign of when the name started to be used. Google Maps can help to answer some of those questions ( [4]) but even with a GPS location there is minimal to no information. My vote is not in dispute; I think the US township articles should largely be merged to the county articles, and the same applies more strongly for this Turkish mahalle. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leopold Township is mentioned in Eyewitness News and Courier Press lists that a lake in Leopold is tested for bacteria. This would make it more fit for entry than Agcakent. versacespace leave a message! 17:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of a township in the United States is offtopic; if you really want to talk about this visit my talk page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The closer should also be aware that, as well as the talk-page canvassing noted above, this AFD was WP:CANVASSed at the cricket forum, because somehow Turkish "neighbourhoods" are related to cricket? FOARP (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|FOARP}} can you provide diffs? that would make this a lot easier. versacespace leave a message! 19:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wait...why didnt it ping u? versacespace leave a message! 20:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I'm as opposed to mass creation of substubs as anyone, and I've had disagreements with several editors as a result. (I think that unless an editor can take the time to do a bit of research and create at least a genuine stub, with a couple of sources, that provides a few details about a topic, he or she should not create an article about the topic.) Nevertheless, these are verifiable places that, as Ivar the Boneful says, would not be objected to were they about tiny villages in Britain or the United States. Deor (talk)

We object to tiny villages in the United States all the time, since many United States stubs were created based on unreliable sources. The source these stubs were based on isn't clearly reliable, either, and whether they actually meet WP:GEOLAND is arguable (as mentioned, it appears at least one does, but that can be updated/saved/re-created.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to back up SportingFlyer here, there's an entire team of people going through California stubs and deleting the failing ones. The sourcing of those articles is no better than that being used here. Also, WP:WAX. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they are being deleted is because they are not verifiable as populated places or they are subdivisions. All of the places mentioned in this AFD have a population between 32 and 739. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know these aren't sub-divisions? Census tracts and neighbourhoods have greater than zero populations but are excluded by GEOLAND, having a population doesn't necessarily imply that the SNG is met. SportingFlyer T·C 10:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places". Subdivisions and neighbourhoods typically don't have legal recognition as places, but any that have are not excluded. It isn't relevant here, as all of them are places that could be described as villages (if village didn't have a more specific meaning in Turkey) or hamlets. Peter James (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, considering the level of sourcing we have here, on what basis are you making that claim? SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These places (and others in the list cited as a source) can all be found on maps (although there are some in other districts I can't find), and they are all in the census; the source in the articles verifies legal recognition. Peter James (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND specifically excludes maps and tables, which is what I'm led to believe that source shows based on the reply to my !vote (as I've noted above, I can't view it because my internet provider believes it to be a security risk.) I can't specifically rebut your "verifies legal recognition" claim, but I also don't necessarily agree with it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect all. The current format is unsustainable. To the extent these are notable locations, they can be merged to a List of populated places in Aziziye article, but tens of thousands of permanent one-sentence stubs is a horrible idea. This is the usual reminder that Wikipedia data is forever and gets mirrored around the Internet. Is there really a plan to monitor all of these articles? If somebody sticks false data in one of these articles, are you okay with it being echoed around for years and years until somebody else notices? For the rare article that expands past one sentence, sure, break it out to its own article again. Until then, merge these to a list article. SnowFire (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- " Is there really a plan to monitor all of these articles? If somebody sticks false data in one of these articles, are you okay with it being echoed around for years and years until somebody else notices?" - Everything I created is on my watchlist, with any vandalism reverted. It's a very weak argument to say don't create X because it could get vandalised. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A list could be made somewhere, in user namespace or in a WikiProject. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - First off, for the vast majority of editors, sure, but you've created 80,000 articles, so it's a little different. It is not humanly possible for anybody to closely monitor that many articles themselves, and even if they could, Wikipedia is a group project. We need a sustainable structure that works for everyone.
  - But this is more a side note, it's not just about high-volume article creators, it's also about proper policy in general. For other topics, like say TV episodes, there's generally been a consensus that for lightly trafficed / less notable shows, even when each episode could be a split-off, it's often times better and more maintainable to start with a "List of episodes in season 2 of XYZ" type article, and only build the spin-off separate article once there's substantial content more than the release date and verification of its existence. Again, this is strictly a matter of content organization, I'm talking about "what is the best way to present the exact same information." But at least for separate TV episode articles, whatever, it's just a TV episode. These are real places you're adding populated by real people. The stakes are higher. On a not-small American city, there was somebody persistently adding in negative claims about other living people, that sometimes lasted more than a month. It's a real problem, not a phantom worry. We should be responsible and try to mitigate it when possible, especially when there's not even a request that any content be removed. SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - TV episode articles can contain claims about living people. Articles about villages are likely to have fewer edits, so Special:RecentChangesLinked should be useful. Sometimes I have used it with templates such as Template:Infobox UK place and most edits are to the towns and cities. With popular culture and BLPs, a complete list isn't possible, there are too many edits, and many of the edits are by unregistered users. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these meet WP:GEOLAND; "excludes tables from establishing notability" means they are not significant coverage, it doesn't mean they can't be used to verify whether places are legally recognised and populated. The only one I'm not sure about is Söğütlü, as the source mentions two places with the same name. The Vietnamese article confuses them, which is the reason for the difference in population. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - outside of policy, why are so many people objecting to putting these in one article together? The current information in the many articles is not much for their own articles, but it is enough to stick them in a table and it would look much better than having one line stubs. None of the "redirect" voters appear to object to the most notable of the bunch being recreated. versacespace leave a message! 12:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A list makes it more difficult to add content, makes incorrect links more likely, and prevents linking between articles in different languages. If there is a redirect, a new page is often created with a different title or in another namespace and the redirect has to be deleted or history merged for the page to be moved. Stubs are smaller pages than lists - it isn't useful when looking for information about one place to find a long article with a list of other places, and most articles are already too long. It's also better to have the structure of an article there even if there is not much content. Peter James (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the "pokemon" situation where not every pokemon got its own article and are incorporated into a list where a redirect goes directly to the pokemon being looked for, i'm pretty sure you can do that with these neighborhoods. If content should be added about a neighborhood, which I'm doubtful it will, an article could be created for it, because that would be a legitimately good sign of potential for an article and would be a valid stub with more than just a table sourcing its existence, contrary to the ones nominated for deletion right now. versacespace leave a message! 12:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: neighborhoods / districts do not meet WP:GEOLAND. There are also questions of WP:V, with the articles all being sourced to a single website. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, or, barring that, redirect. The current sourcing means they fail GEOLAND. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" That includes these places. Peter James (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - In response to the concerns from @Peter James: and others above that "a list makes it more difficult to add content"... it certainly doesn't have to be that way. If there really is a consensus that we want friendly, expand-me invitations, we can just use sections of an overview article. See User:SnowFire/List of mahalle in Aziziye for a sample I just whipped up. Now, the fact that once "These are all in Aziziye in Erzum in Turkey" is dispensed with in the lede, there's currently absolutely nothing to say about any of these that's unique, but we can still use expand-sect if there's really a belief there's more to be said other than an entry on a table. (Let me stress again that this does not get to GEOLAND compliance immediately, but if you really believe it will eventually? Great, try this format for a year, see if any of these actually expand.) SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the lighthouse project, at least for US lights, started from on list for all US lights, and articles were created full out rather than stubbed. Things have slowed down, but that has to do with changes at the USCG pages which removed one of the major sources. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect all 1 sentence permastubs without any proof of significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability is absolutely NOT a sustainable format. Recreate only if non-trivial coverage can actually be cited to exist. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include your 1 sentence permastubs or only those created by other editors? Peter James (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles I create cite sources that have significant coverage of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect all - The nom says these all fail WP:NGEO because we can't use tables to establish notability, but my reading of WP:NGEO and WP:GEOLAND is that populated, legally recognized places are presumed to be notable, which I take to mean that we establish notability by virtue of their existence, something that WP:NGEO acknowledges tables can do. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. Lists are a better way to present such information to readers. Störm (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (last one, I promise) - The closer's attention is drawn to this ANI close (permalink) in which a strong consensus was found against the creation of these articles. This is of course not necessarily decisive of the outcome of this AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the close, also reliable sources were found and are now being used. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP does like to grave-dance and distort the truth somewhat. The closer's remarks make no reference to "a strong consensus was found against the creation of these articles", when it actually states "There is very clear consensus that Lugnuts is repeatedly failing to verify information". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which is equally as bad. it seems you've agreed to stop creating these though, so i don't see the point in dragging this any further than this afd. versacespace leave a message! 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The burden needs to be on creators to provide enough sourcing to show notability, and in this case the creator failed to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Störm. Riteboke (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2021 (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.