Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Sea–Caspian Steppe

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. ✗plicit 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sea–Caspian Steppe[edit]

[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 huge article is tagged as unreferenced since May 2020. I looked into its history to see if vandals deleted references and noticed that in an early version the page creator wrote "There appears to be no book in English about this region. Sources can be found in the linked articles.", i.e., basically admitted WP:SYNTH. Russian Wikipedia lede says "Понтийско-Каспийская степь (Причёрноморско-Каспийская степь) — огромная степь..." (The Pontic–Caspian steppe (Black Sea- Caspian Steppe) is a huge steppe...) I.e., the "owners" of the most of the steppe use these terms interchangeably. Google search gives a miserable number of85 unique hits for the term, mostly its usage, with no in-depth coverage of such a huge and allegedly important area. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Southern Federal District: This seems to be the mother article. Integration into Southern Federal District seems to be a better idea if we can find references for a lot of the historical and geographic statements made in this one. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
- - bad idea on 3 counts (A) merging a geographical subject into an administrative subdivision that can change (b) merge unreferenced text (3) redrecting a vague geographical area for which definition there are no sources into an administrative subdivision. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral Unless someone provides a stronger reason for deletion. When I look at this I see a huge amount of excellent material about a geographic area. I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. So weakness in that latter area is not very indicative of anything. I don't have the expertise in this area or related article to know how this should be covered, but what I see is a huge amount of good material about a geographic area which is probably slam-dunk wp:notable. Doubly so with the extra emphasis of Wikipedia's gazetteer function set out in the 5 pillars policy. And paucity of coverage by the exact title of the article is not an indicator otherwise. What this is needs is experts/ editors from this area deciding, not an AFD with the above-described lack of substantiated reasons to delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That the term does not have coverage in sources (only occasionally mentioned in an unknown meaning) is not enough reason? Yes, the user did an immense job... of original research. Just the same I can spend an immense amount of work to describe the Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands , with all real rivers and boroughs, but will it mean that wikipedia must have it? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "must have it" is a higher bar than the standard. I do agree that your point about Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands points out a valid concern..... if an editor invents an subdivision and finds sources relevant to it, that that alone isn't enough. But the other extreme would be to require sources that use the exact name of the article. I think that the best question/answer would be whether the sources treat the topic of the article as a distinct subdivision. That would address the wp:notability questions which is the main criteria regarding a guideline-based deletion here. My own opinion would be to see if someone familiar with the Wikipedia articles for that area feels that this topic should have a separate article. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my position from "keep" to "neutral". The change is because of offsetting concerns that I see no realistic prospect of this material getting sourced, whether it be in a separate article or via moving into another article. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not seem to be recognized as a distinct geographical entity, as opposed to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Searching for the name in Russian returned a whopping 7 results, all of which were Wikipedia mirrors. There could always be print sources out there that specifically discuss this area as a discrete concept, but given the term's utter absence on the internet I'm doubtful they exist. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is it real, or is it OR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of sufficient sources that treat this as a recognized unit. The Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands comparison above is useful to illustrate the problem. I remember we had a very detailed article at AfD some time ago about a putative concatenated watershed running the entire range of western Europe; the arguments that led to deletion were the same - synthesizing lots of details does not make up for absence of real-world treatment of the topic per se. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user who created this article seems to be a hoax account. Their user page starts with the Italian saying "Se non è vero, è Ben Trovato", which translates to "Even if it is not true, it is a good story". Not a good start. The username is Benjamin Trovato, clearly a reference to the saying. This is not the only big article without sources that the user created, apparently this is all they do, and in their talk page there are several users complaining about this behaviour. See for example History of the western steppe, History of the central steppe, and History of the eastern steppe. Now the topics are all obscure and I can't verify whether the user is just making shit up, but I'm not impressed with the quality of the prose and the content of the articles. Tercer (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on only on the hoax account concern, as I noted at the beginning, I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. Several years back I worked with them quite a bit in a certain topic area and they did an immense amount of research and contributed an immense amount of material which I know to be correct. And most without providing references/ cites, even though we were discussing the specific books that they were taking the material from. Also I think that them having 21,000 edits spanning 13 years further reinforces that it is not a hoax account. Again, this is only to address that one concern, not to argue for keeping the article. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll take your word for it that it is not a hoax account, merely lazy with sourcing. I won't change my !vote, though, as we still don't have any sources for this particular article, despite the best efforts of the other editors. My guess is that we're dealing with WP:SYNTH here. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like time to close Open for 12 days, 4 or 5 "deletes" and one "neutral" and zero "keeps". North8000 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 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.