Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haiok, Ternopil Oblast

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Evidence of legal recognition has been provided and consensus is that it's enough to meet WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haiok, Ternopil Oblast[edit]

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

Haiok, Ternopil Oblast (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)

Village fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition or significant coverage. Sourcing consists of maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this type of village lacks a municipal government, local council, incorporation or anything else that would normally be considered evidence of legal recognition. I'm not even finding the name in any of the sources; unclear whether this is a machine translation issue or if the wrong link was used somewhere along the line. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned here by name, and there is an article on page 325 of volume 1 of the Encyclopedic Dictionary.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I do not think that a listing in this type of national place name directory is considered legal recognition by our standards. If the encyclopedia entry is in-depth enough to satisfy GNG, I would suggest using it to expand the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Encyclopaedia source is nice but it essentially is evidence towards a potential GNG pass, but to meet that we need at least TWO instances of significant coverage. There is no evidence of a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass here because there is no evidence of legal recognition (e.g., something showing that the settlement is a level of administration). The word "Гайок" is not mentioned anywhere on the link posted above - I see Нарайвская громада, but there is no Гайок listed there. There is a Гаёк, though - is this what is being referred to? I suppose this could be a Russian name that is transcribed as Гайок in Ukrainian? But it is listed as a selo, which is essentially just a rural locality, not a level of administration. I'm not sure Gromada.info is an official website anyway, as it is not at a .gov.ua domain.
Oddly the same goes for all the other sources used on the page: ctrl-F "Гайок" returns zero results. Looking at the "Ternopil" section of each page I see nothing that looks even similar to this name. The "official information about this village" external link takes me to a site about Vilkhovets village. To be on the safe side I also looked in these sources for "Гаёк", but it is not mentioned in them either.
Given the above, Ymblanter, I am very sceptical that the encyclopaedia article actually does mention this place since the original author appears to have created this article without it being described at all in the other sources. This whole thing could just be a case of mistaken transcription. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is indeed in Russian, so it is Гаёк there. Concerning legal recognition, I am not sure what you are talking about. This is not the US, this is Ukraine. There are no incorporated or non-incorporated communities. There are oblasts, which are subdivided to districts, which are subdivided to hromadas. There are a few hundred hromadas in the whole country. Each hromada consists of a number of rural and urban localities. Haiok is one of these localities. Fine, you can argue that only hromadas are notable, and everything else is not. But then it must be in the policies. Currently, we have an encyclopedia article about the village which provides population and some historical facts. We have a reliably sourced statement that it belongs to a certain hromada (hromada.info is indeed not in gov.ua domain and is using ads, but it is subordinate to the Ministry of Regional development or whatever it is called). We have reliably sourced info tjhat the village was previously subodrinated to Lapshyn [1]. This amount of information was always sufficient to keep an artlcle.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather like the Turkish Mahalle case where all we really have is evidence of existence, and no other actual information, and the decision there was simply just to redirect them to district-level, with the author losing the auto-patrolled bit at ANI. Selos are not (or do not appear to be) an actual level of administration so there does not appear to be "legal recognition" - instead they are just rural localities, and in this case we don't even have a reliable source telling us where the place is or how it is presently administered - just that it used to be under Lapshyn and for all we know still is. FOARP (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not under Lapshyn anymore, since the whole system of administrative divisions and local government was overhauled in 2020. There is no administration below the hromada level. By your argument, urban localities would also not be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the encyclopedic dictionary article is an actual information, and is a tertiary source. You seem to ignore this argument. This is different from the Turkish Mahalle case.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring the encyclopaedia because the guy who created this article (in 2 minutes or less according to the log) appears not to have confirmed that any of the sources they cited actually mentioned the actual subject of the article. Do you have access to the encyclopaedia and can you tell us what it says? I do not (the links here don't work for me) but I'm not going to simply assume it was after they cited three other sources that don't mention it unless someone can show me that it does.
Very happy to say that any locality, urban or rural, that we have no evidence of legal recognition for, and which is also not a WP:GNG pass, should get deep-sixed. Indeed, we've been pretty consistent in simply deleting/redirecting/merging urban neighbourhoods to larger units where there's just nothing at all giving us any real information about them (e.g., the Filipino barangays case). Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, it's an encyclopaedia, so we write encyclopaedia articles here, not bare gazetteer listings. We literally don't even have a reliable source for the location of this selo.
Since the issue of representation often gets raised here, let me just say that in my experience people in the countries the articles about are often the ones asking why we're creating all these garbage articles about their country. For example, in the Iranian ābādī case it was Iranian editors who raised the issue of the ābādī articles being pure garbage - they got especially angry because EN Wiki is seen as a gold-standard by editors on Farsi wiki and so the EN-wiki articles were just being machine-translated onto their Wiki. Similarly in the Filipino barangays case it was Filipinos who were asking why all these articles were being created about places that from a Filipino point of view just weren't notable. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the links work for me, and the article is there, I in fact looked at it before writing anything on this page. It is not very extensive but contains info which is now in the article. The user who created the article, as far as I understand, is a local historian, and he did not mass-create articles, so that the analogy with Iranian and Turkish stub mass creation is not correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it isn't WP:SIGCOV if that's all it says - if it's short can you just copy the text here? Like I said the links don't work for me. This article was made in 2 minutes, so regardless of how many articles were written, the amount of care that went into it was the same as in the Iranian/Turkish stubs case. The problem with the mass-creation was never the number of articles, it was the lack of care that went into them. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have some font issues and can not copy it, but basically it says that Haion is subodronate to Berezhany Disctrict and Lapshyn administration (both outdated), that there was another village, Koloniia, which was later merged into Haiok, on which river it is located, population, and that it has a school (not sure what level).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Koloniia is not village, this khutir near village Haiok - Микола Василечко (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.58.77.77 (talk) [reply]
Thanks Ymblanter. OK, that sounds like WP:SIGCOV, but we'd need another instance of it for WP:GNG. I see some stuff for Haiok in L'viv, but nothing for this Haiok. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Others villages in name Haiok in Ukraine: Гайок Гайок Гайок Гайок Гайок - Микола Василечко (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.58.77.77 (talk) [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haiok,_Ternopil_Oblast&oldid=1061242627"