Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qamdün

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qamdün[edit]

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

Non-notable village with no encylopaedic conent, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Has never been edited since its creation, has no content whatsoever. This is something of a test case because I am concentrating mostly on what a bot has made out of silly redirect titles by assuming the "ü" was a Germanic umlaut, and thus created "Qamduen". That's at RfD, but if we can say nothing about a subject, we should say so. Just having its coordinate data is not good enough, WP:NOTDIRECTORY I think applies. There are hundreds of thousands of these, of course. A good 25,000 with geodata scraped from the INSEE and a good 2,500 from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, of which a few have encylopaedic content but the vast majority don't. I imagine that the same will apply to many other countries, but French places, Hungarian places and English places are mostly what I discover, because that tends to be my expertise. I appreciate WP:NOTFINISHED but these have not even been started, just imported from a geographical database to bump the number of articles up, without adding any content to them. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Wikipedia is not a directory, but it is a "gazetteer", whatever that is exactly. Generally, well-defined geographical places get kept. --Trovatore (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese name is 香堆 (Xiangdui). There is a Gelug monastery in the vicinity. ~~'Qamdün' might be a phonetic Chinglish rendering of Ganden (tib: དགའ་ལྡན), i.e. Joyous Land, Tushita, also the name of famous monastery near Lhasa.~~ Wrong. The Tibetan name of the place is བྱངས་མདུན (Wylie: byangs mdun). 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The population is 8000 people. Here is an article containing an aerial picture of the place. There may be other Xiangdui in Tibet, but I am pretty sure of the identification since the text refers to Chaya (i.e Zhag'yab) County. A big temple is clearly visible and in all likelihood historically significant. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese pages! This government page has nice pictures of the town and of the temple in particular. This Baike article provides a socio-economic overview. There is also a meager Chinese Wikipedia article. Moreover according to this site the town is tied to a specific variety of Tibetan opera. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And it might not even be notable enough for a "List of insignificant Tibetan villages" as well. Collect (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there are likely to be sources about this village in Chinese (or Tibetan). This is the reason that towns are presumed notable -- things almost always get written about them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From WP:PILLARS: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Applying notability requirements to towns would be a major change and should be brought up at the village pump; I don't see any value in picking away at these one by one. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think an argument can be made to cull a significant number of Tibetan village articles that say nothing more than "So-and-so is a village in Tibet". I make a distinction, however, for township-level villages (such as this) that are a distinct administrative level of the Chinese settlement hierarchy and clearly meet WP:GEOLAND guidelines. I'm going to work on beefing up many of the township-level and county-level settlement articles for Greater Tibet in the upcoming months, and I'll make sure to include this one. --NoGhost (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails notability. Agree with Collect, it's not notable enough to make the list of Insignificant Tibetan villages. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the sources that the IP has generously provided, it seems that this subject satisfies the intentionally low bar set by WP:GEOLAND. The nominator has linked WP:NOTDIRECTORY but for the life of me I don't see how it applies and would appreciate some specific text to be cited. "Directory entry" is not interchangeable with "an article that is currently very short"; the crux would be whether the subject was incapable of further encyclopedic expansion. Anyone who watches the list of Geography-related deletion discussions sees these sorts of articles nominated regularly; almost always it's a non-English location with a short or poorly formatted article. The nomination usually boils down to "I've never heard of it", and if you're lucky they'll present their hasty, fruitless Google search (in English, of course) as evidence of "non-notability". The articles are usually kept or merged, rarely deleted, because even though AFD is not cleanup, it's typically not hard for someone with the necessary language skills and geographic knowledge to demonstrate the subject's suitability for inclusion (thanks, 84.73.134.206!). "There are hundreds of thousands of these" for a reason, and that reason is found within WP:5PILLARS: A stated aim of Wikipedia is to function at least partially as a gazeteer, and having extant stubs allows for ease of expansion by non-power users who may eventually find the article and improve it. Instead of using this as a "test case" (to do what, exactly? Set precedent for deleting short geographic articles while bypassing WP:BEFORE?), I agree with Trotavore that the nominator would be better served by initializing a larger discussion at the Village Pump, WP:NGEO, or maybe even WP:5PILLARS itself if this sort of article is seen as truly problematic. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My knowledge of Chinese is actually limited, but GTranslator is a remarkable tool, if used properly. I've added references to the Renda Cliff, a beautiful archaeological site situated in the vicinity of Jamdün. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per work by ip:84.73.134.206, there seem to be plenty of RS to write a V, NPOV, and NOR article. The current state of the article also passes those policies, I think.
Keep article satisfies WP:GEOLAND. SamsaK (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. If someone wants to change that policy, bring it up at the village pump, not here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well if this was a "test case" nom it seems to be a decisive result in favour of our existing policies such as WP:GEOLAND which unambiguously states "Populated, legally recognised places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" and our most "fundamental principles" which are set out at WP:PILLARS. One of our pillars is that we are a gazetteer. AusLondonder (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2017 (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.