Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladikme, Baskil

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. What a mess. First off, this AfD is a good indication that when a set of things in a category may reasonably be expected to have differing levels of notability, a mass AfD is a bad idea. Further, there's a lot of poor argument here. WP:GEOLAND exists because legally recognized places will generally have received substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that coverage may often be inaccessible. This is particularly true outside the anglosphere. This doesn't necessarily mean every legally recognized place needs to have an article, but at the least an exhaustive search is needed to determine a lack of notability. Several !votes here obviously were not backed by such a search. Conversely, referring to a previous AfD isn't helpful when the topics are obviously different, and as such I am disregarding entirely any comments that did so. Further, even notable topics do not necessarily required a standalone article, per WP:NOPAGE. As such there's not as much engagement with the substance of this issue as I'd like, but nonetheless there's consensus here that at least Akuşağı, Baskil requires a standalone page; that the other titles meet WP:GEOLAND; and that the other titles require a case-by-case discussion at the very least if mergers are considered. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aladikme, Baskil

[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)

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]
- Personally I'd still rather see them as redirects to the parent district. Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view, that many of these stub-type articles would be more useful to users if they were covered at Baskil, which is still, itself, very bare, with the villages as redirects there. Not everything needs an article and such articles with little prospect of useful expansion are good examples IMO. Nigej (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I agree with Nigej; the encyclopedic info can be better presented in the district article. In addition, much of the expansion is filler content/trivia which creates some undue recentism issues. As such, there is not enough for me to change my !vote. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere close to agreeing with the above. At least 7 of these meet GEOLAND. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, passing the ultra low-bar of GEOLAND in and of itself is not sufficient justification for having a standalone article. If the available (non-trivia) information can be better presented in an article on a wider topic or a list article, then we should do that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:GEOLAND says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but one of the purposes of AfDs such as this is to decide whether the "typically presumed" applies and, as I noted above, it's quite clear from WP:N that, even if a "populated, legally recognized place" is notable, then editors can use "their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", which I'm assuming we're deciding by consensus here. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the villages I mention above include pretty reliable sources and have reasonably been expanded. All of them have a population in three digits, and I see no reason for them to not have their own article. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Apart from the fact that I'm not at all convinced that these articles pass GNG, my view is that our readers will find it much more useful to have a good article at Baskil rather than 50 of these stubs with little or no in-depth content. The tribe information is already there, the population can readily be added, and the rest of the content is largely trivia, but some could be added to the Baskil article, with individual villages having a short section. The whole article would still not be overly long. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that there's little to no content, and to fix that, more content should be cut and merged, and that would make it have more content? I don't understand your logic. One article being bigger size-wise does not mean there is more content. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx: Make that two reliable sources for most of them, since they still cite Koyumuz which is the reason they were redirected in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the info on Koyumuz is pretty accurate. I've swapped the 2012 population on Koyumuz with the official census of 2000 in many articles since you asked me to on my talk page, and I'm not seeing unbelievable things/changes related. The only time it was off by some margin was here, which still doesn't seem unbelievable to me since I've seen the exact thing happen in my hometown (5000+ to 3000). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with keeping ones with substantive information and sources addressing the place, but they can also be covered within the main article. Those articles made in bulk should be redirected in bulk – anyone can recreate with further content without an AFD driving it. Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gritting my teeth saying it, @Styyx:, because it's plain you put some effort into finding sources and to save the articles. But I'm just not looking at WP:SIGCOV, IMHO; I'm looking at trivia. That a village has a primary school, that snowfalls make winter travel hard, that elliptical eggplants are grown near one, that a building in honor of a local policeman was halted through lack of funds, that there are old graves near one (heck, I live in an area that's been settled a twentieth as long as Turkey has, and you can hardly take a stroll without tripping over an old cemetery) ... these are all bits of trivia that would be deleted out of the average town article. I'd want to see more substantial information before independent articles could be sustained, and at least a redirect preserves the article in the event that happens. Ravenswing 19:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never aimed for SIGCOV, the objective has always been GEOLAND#1. Having a schoo regulated by the ministry is supposed to mean it's legally recognized. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, then any articles that actually have substantial coverage can be recreated from there. I agree with Ravenswing et al that coverage for some exists, but if it's not encyclopedic then how can it genuinely count towards notability? JoelleJay (talk)
Merge Styyx's information, where encyclopaedic, into the district article, and then redirect to the district. It's not okay simply to redirect without merging. Although I sympathise with Ravenswing's position, I wouldn't go so far. Yup, snow in winter is trivial, but the ancient graves are definitely relevant to readers, who may legitimately be interested in the region's prehistory. Even the primary school counts, if the other villages don't have primary schools. The district has an area of 516 square miles, which means in my country it would expect to have about 170 primary schools. If, in fact, it has only one, this says quite a lot about the distances travelled by kids to get to school, the social challenges of education, and the social situation of the area, and is therefore of encyclopaedic interest. If there are 30 other primary schools in the district, less so... Styyx, what's the situation? Is this school especially unusual? I still believe there's a huge discrepancy between how we're treating settlements in the US, and how we treat them elsewhere, which is extremely unhelpful. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of schools in the whole district according to the ministry is 4 high, 6 middle and 7 primary schools. The school in Aladikme was "Kerik", but now is closed. The current one is "Mustafa Bilbay", but I don't feel the need to specifically mention the name. Also made a mistake as it's both a primary and a middle school. Also Kadıköy appearently has a high school I didn't notice. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly share Styyx’s sentiment about this. We’ve had over a decade of experience working on Turkish geostubs over on Turkish Wikipedia. I’ll be happy to share some of those insights and look at these articles individually if it actually helps, but I find it very telling that people who don’t speak a word of Turkish think it’s a good idea to mass nominate these articles, regardless of how they were created, or make broad comments about content not being encyclopaedic, with the said content including details about the geographical area surrounding the village or the village having a school (which anyone with an inkling of insight on Turkish countryside would agree constitutes encyclopaedic knowledge). This speaks volumes about the level of systemic bias at play here and is frankly very disheartening. —GGT (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, no. That's a card played all too often by people on Wikipedia unhappy at seeing their pet projects disturbed. There are, in fact, no separate set of notability guidelines pertaining to the Turkish countryside (other than what may prevail on the Turkish WP, which has zero bearing on practices and standards on any other national WP, this one included), nor are participants in a particular Wikiproject granted vetoes over their "own" articles. Villages have schools and cemeteries all over the world, and the mere existence of the same does not confer notability. Ravenswing 03:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is so full of straw men. What pet project? Where am I claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? WP:NOTINHERITED bears literally no relation to what we’re talking about (no one is claiming that notability is inherited by being associated with… what, a non-notable school?), peppering comments with random links does not make them stronger. Part of the crux of the argument to delete rests upon the presumption that even if there is content about these villages, it’s not encyclopaedic (I’ll address the whole GEOLAND/MERGEREASONS issue in another comment). That’s simply untrue. I don’t care that lots of villages around the world have schools, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to delete. The topic here is whether there’s any encyclopaedic value to mentioning the fact that villages in Turkey have schools, and the answer is yes because many villages in Turkey don’t have schools and this is actually a major issue there. The village with the cemetery has one that is dated to the Seljuk times, that means it’s at least from the 13th century. Lots of villages in Turkey have Ottoman cemeteries, such that a national newspaper wouldn’t usually care about reporting on them, yet Seljuk cemeteries are rare (and encyclopaedic) and thus this village made it to national news. People here are making broad statements based on their own experiences (such as the fact that their area has lots of cemeteries!). Well, I’m sorry but the all-seeing eye of the Anglophone editor doesn’t suffice here, context matters and you will miss the nuances unless you have the cultural literacy to comment on this in context or take the time to do the necessary reading around these issues. —GGT (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All we are really interested in is whether there is sufficient significant coverage with which to build a standalone article; if not there is a more than adequate parent article to list basic details. Name-drops of villages in news stories because something happens to occur in, or be located in, the vicinity (and sometimes that could be a dozens of miles/kms away, so not actually anywhere near the place) do nothing more than confirm existence; adding those stories to the articles tells us nothing about the villages themselves and in some cases is undue. Some of this stuff may be encyclopedic, but it's often not actually about the village concerned, so would actually be better covered within the district article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather: That’s a very reasonable concern. I’m planning to choose one of these articles to work on and then address this point in my !vote. Regards. —GGT (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where am you claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? When you state outright that you think speaking the Turkish language should be a prerequisite for both nominating Turkish-related articles for deletion (which, by the bye, has not actually happened here) or commenting on the same. And never mind the absurdity of your inference that Anatolia lacks cemeteries in profusion -- what, are you alleging that neither Turks nor Greeks bury their dead? Own your own statements. Ravenswing 13:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts. --Victor Trevor (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts didn't actually make any argument to keep these articles. He merely referenced an AFD discussion where sufficient sourcing had been found to keep the specific article that was nominated, which is a very common outcome at AFD. Regardless of whether he put an "(!)" into his comment, this means nothing for the present discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All current and historical villages (i.e. all places that are currently or have historically been recognised as a köy) in Turkey should be regarded as notable as per WP:GEOLAND, for reasons I'll explain below. If there is no consensus on this, in the light of my work on Akuşağı, that article should be kept and the rest should be procedurally kept without prejudice to any future nomination. This will be a long post so I apologise, but it is a nuanced subject and we are potentially setting a precedent for thousands of villages.
As far as I can see, the arguments for redirection/merging have two bases in guidelines:
- WP:MERGEREASON per the #3 "shortness" criterion. Note that this isn't actually a guideline and thus holds less weight. Despite what has been argued above, this criterion cannot be applied regardless of notability. As stated right underneath this in WP:NOTMERGE, merging should be avoided for three reasons, and all three are met in this case. These topics can be expanded into longer stand-alone articles, as demonstrated by Akuşağı (#2); the topics may well warrant their own articles per the GNG/SNGs (#3). Concerns have been raised that content about sites that are not located in the village itself but in the area may be undue in village articles and may be better handled in district articles. I disagree with this line of argument on two grounds: 1) Merging all encyclopaedic information from the village articles (irrespective of the subjective, culturally insensitive comments about the material) would render the Baskil district article too clunky (see NOTMERGE #1) and give undue weight to the villages rather than the actual town. 2) Historical sites found within the bounds of a settlement are often handled in that settlement's article regardless of a lack of continuity (see History of Milton Keynes for a good example) and can be well-integrated into these articles with due editorial care, as I have done in the case of Akuşağı.
- Overturning the presumption of notability provided by WP:GEOLAND as these villages are argued to fail WP:GNG. This is a puzzling argument; the language used in GEOLAND#1 ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."), which covers these articles, is the same as the language used on GNG (i.e. presumption but no guarantee of notability). There is nothing to indicate that one essentially overrides the other.
- At any rate, the guideline presumes the notability of these places and thus places the burden of proof to presume otherwise on the delete/redirect/merge !voters. I would be inclined to accept this line of argument if all practicable steps to investigate an article's notability were taken and failed. That simply isn't the case here. It's clear that WP:BEFORE hasn't been met for any of these articles, indeed, I doubt any of the merge/redirect !voters have bothered to run a Google search on them. Many of the sources I found for Akuşağı are national Turkish newspapers, I would expect any decent Google News search to identify these sources. This is the bare minimum, but in order to overturn a presumption of notability, I would expect more. Turkish village geostubs are a perennial issue on tr.wiki, and in our experience it is almost always possible for the dedicated editor to find sources on them (I'll refer to this article as an example), but allow me to detail some of the issues:
  - There are few Turkish villages that haven't had changes to their names in the past century, and this has to be accounted for in the search strategy.
  - A lot of Turkish villages are covered in sources that are not written in Turkish but in other languages (I haven't carried out a Kurdish-language seach for Akuşağı, which is a Kurdish village). These languages often use different alphabets, e.g. Armenian, Georgian (see the example I provided), Greek, Russian or Arabic.
  - Even if you are purely looking at Turkish-language sources, Turkey had an alphabet reform in the 1920s so you have to account for that.
  - Turkish newspapers are crap at digitising their historical archives. There are only two national newspapers with fully digitised archives. Local papers? Don't even think about them, some of the currently published ones aren't online anyway, and there are a lot of historical, short-lived ones.
  - There are a lot of offline sources that discuss these villages (e.g. village reports of the Interior Ministry in the 1960s, Ottoman publications, ethnographic works, local history books - see the example article above) that haven't been digitised at all - you wouldn't be able to see even snippets on Google Books.
- So a sufficiently detailed search to establish non-notability would require a detailed search using various names/languages and probably a visit to a Turkish library. You don't have the resources to do that? Then presume that it's notable per GEOLAND#1 and please mind your bias.
If there is no consensus on the points above, it's clear based on my work on Akuşağı that 1) that article meets GNG, 2) WP:BEFORE hasn't been met and 3) all the other articles need to be individually scrutinised as it's clearly impossible to do a proper GNG check on 12 articles at the same time.
--GGT (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've now nominated Akuşağı, Baskil for DYK. --GGT (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all based on superb work by User:Styx and a definitive analysis by User:GGT. I'm hoping this may see the end of these futile / point-y nominations. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per pretty much all of my above comments and per GGT. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to simply close this as "keep all", I'm not going to cause a row. But I will remove the AfD template from Akuşağı, Baskil, which obviously passes the GNG and is on its way to the front page, thanks to GGT. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. I must note that Cyberbot seems to be very insistent on reinstating that AfD template. :) --GGT (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the work, I'm still of the view that readers would be better served by having a good article at the Baskil level. As I noted above, even if some of the villages might pass GNG we can still decide to have one good article rather than a lot of bad ones. Demirlibahçe, Baskil still says nothing. Even Akuşağı, Baskil is largely full of padding, there's little real content. Sadly the much more important article about Baskil, the town and the district, is still just a list of the villages. Effort has gone into all the wrong articles. Better 1 good article than 50 poor ones. Nigej (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not possible to expand information on the district article without removing additional information? Dege31 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The total useful content in all the village articles would easily fit into the district article. I'm not talking about removing it. I'm talking about consolidating it into one article which would be much more useful for our readers. This obsession with creating large numbers of articles with little or no content is not what an encyclopedia is about. Nigej (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What rationale, guideline or policy are you using to determine what's useful content here? I can't tell why you consider eg. Akuşağı, Baskil "largely full of padding". Dege31 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very highest, ie WP:N. As I noted above "Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view". Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff. Nigej (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Per Lugnuts. In addition, I think that Kadıköy, Baskil especially needs to be kept given that it has a substantial amount of sources and citations. All these articles, at least, have a little useful information in them that qualifies them as notable. Sincerely, Dunutubble (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej:: 'Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff.' That's funny. It's actually from a national newspaper... Do you have any policy justification at all for this type of comment? --GGT (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A point of reference for the "ideal" village article might help, and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but surely there must be an established way in which articles on villages are written. Navenby is an English village with FA status. The article talks about a local baker with his Lincolnshire plum pudding, a butchers' shop, the local Stagecoach service only running once on a Sunday, the village primary school, a phone box, the local juniors' football team... It also happens to contain fewer references to national press than Akuşağı. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite like that area of England and enjoyed reading that article. The only problem is, equivalent material cannot be FA material in England and "padding" in Turkey. What people here call "padding", "not encyclopaedic" is just how articles on villages are and should be written on Wikipedia. Sorry for badgering on, that's my final comment. --GGT (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many UK inhabited places (and uninhabited ones too) should be consolidated, removing much of the non-encyclopedic content. What some of us find unsavoury is that the only reason there's been any editing of these articles is that they've been nominated for deletion, in some desperate attempt to keep them. The plain truth is that if these articles had been anything like Navenby they'd never have been nominated for deletion. Let's consolidate them into the parent for now and if someone in the future creates so much content on a specific village that the parent article becomes unwealdy then that content can be moved into a separate article. IMO that is a better approach for our readers than creating meaningless stubs for every village in the world. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD isn't to just delete everything nominated. Articles improving instead of being deleted is positive. Dege31 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I think it's a good start, I'd like to expansion, but that may not be possible given the size of the place. However, there are enough references now to establish notability and I think that and the first part of the GEOLAND criteria are enough. No opinion on anything below Aladikme, Baskil on that list. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND are settlements with population figures and some have sources beyond that which doesn't seem to be required by GEOLAND if the place is legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GEOLAND. Weather they were historical settlements or current, there is an inherent notability to population centers.Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above 3 keeps We all know that they pass GEOLAND. That is not the issue at hand. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have expanded Kadıköy, Baskil a bit, and I think it can be kept as a separate article. No opinion about the others — I couldn't find anything substantial about Alangören or Düğüntepe on Google Scholar, but I didn't check anywhere else, and I didn't try any of the others. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 21:34, 29 December 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.