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.
Non-notable location
Hyperwave11 (
talk)
10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It does not meet notability guidelines, as no relevant sources can be found citing its notability, instead just results for plane tickets and weather.reply
Delete? I agree with Pontificialbus, couldn't find any sources about the subject but maybe something its the native name could help. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹
[user |
talk]
16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:V. I get a pretty bad sinking feeling reading this because I get the impression this may have been a common issue with this editor's mass-created articles, and
they're the most prolific article-creator on Wiki. I've added a health-warning to that particular rankings list as I think some editors were just mass-creating stubs in order to rank higher on it.
FOARP (
talk)
13:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think we've got another case of someone producing cookie-cutter location micro-stubs in order to bulk out their article-creation stats here. I just searched
"is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" and got 66 hits, all of them sourced only to GeoNames (an unreliable source), all of them by Encyclopaedus, all created in the same stub-creation session in July 2008. All except three of them 25-29 words in length according to the search stats. Every one of these 63 articles is a
WP:V fail at present since they simply say "X is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" with no information that will allow you to actually identify where/what they are. Of the remaining three, one has a disambiguation notice at the top and is otherwise the same as the 63 I just described. Of the two that aren't the same, neither has an additional reference but they do provide some additional information that might help you know where they are (famous local people in one, local mosques in the other). TL;DR probably we should delete all the "village" stubs in the above search except
Mustafapur and
Aingiri.
Comment Editors who've been around awhile may remember article creator
Encyclopædius as Dr. Blofeld. They created many, many settlement articles in good faith using an automated script. As I recall, they got through the As, Bs, and were well into the Cs before the community stopped them. Later in their career they
expressed distaste for generic stubs of the form "xxx is a village". I believe, although I can't find the post, that they also admitted a measure of regret at having created so many, and tried to delete some, but were overruled on the grounds that
Wikipedia is a gazetteer.
If you use
https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ to search Bangladesh for names beginning with Banstali, you'll get three results, one of which is located at 23.201394, 90.719608, as described in the article. So I have to disagree with participants who say it's
unverifiable. Whether a better source, multiple sources, or sources with a greater depth of coverage, should be required is a different question. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Worldbruce - Many thanks for this insightful contribution. This certainly illuminates better what was going on. I would make the following comments:
What can be created by a script may (with more work, and where there has been no further content added) be deleted with a script.
G7 provides a good rationale for doing this if the original author wants them gone and no-one has contributed any content since creation.
Even if the source were reliable, this would still be a
WP:GEOLAND fail as there is no evidence here of either legal recognition or notability through
WP:GNG.
The article describes this location as a "village", which is basically original research since the GeoNames database describes it only as a "Populated place", which on the face of it is a much broader term than "village" and would include single buildings, camps etc.
FOARP (
talk)
10:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
For most village articles in Bangladesh, the 2011 census' community report for the relevant district is a second reliable source, and using it to confirm they're legally recognized is fairly trivial (after accounting for the fact that there isn't one standard way of transliterating Bengali, so a number of variants must be considered). For Chandpur:
Alumura p. 50,
Amanullapur (as Amanullahpur) p. 48,
Asrafpur (as Ashrafpur) p. 64,
Baidyanathpur p.79,
Baluthupa (now divided into East and West Baluthupa union parishads) p. 52, etc.
[1] Banstali is an exception. Perhaps it no longer exists or has taken a new name.
For nearly all these "xxx is a village" articles, reliable sources exist that demonstrate existence and legal recognition, so because Wikipedia is a gazetteer, I doubt you will succeed in deleting them. You might, however, be able to build support for redirecting them into "List of villages in yyy district" articles. Gazetteers are mostly a list of one-sentence descriptions, they don't have a separate page or article about every entry. I see that you've reached out to Encyclopædius on their talk page. From their "The best thing ... redirect the small village stubs" comment, it appears that they might support this approach. What do you think of it?
If "List of villages in yyy district" articles were created to be targets of redirection, what information should they list about each village? Administrative geographic context (which upazila and union parishad they're in), geographic coordinates, and population? For Bangladesh, there would be 64 lists, one for each district, and for Chandpur there would be (or it could grow to) in the neighborhood of 1500 list entries. An alternative would be to redirect villages to the smallest enclosing administrative unit, the union parishad. That would lead to embedded lists of more manageable length, but would require 4,554 target articles, only about 500 of which currently exist (and, like the village articles, they're so crappy I really wish they didn't exist).
@
Worldbruce: - GeoNet is also highly unreliable as to whether a location is populated, since it is created by the same people that created
GNIS, using the same methodology. Work on mass-created California articles has uncovered many "populated places" sourced to GNIS that are in fact bridges, sidings, factories, oil wells, springs, mines etc. etc. Wiki is a Gazetteer, but it is not a Gazette of every location in the world regardless of legal recognition, population, or notability. Things have changed significantly in the is regard since 2008, particularly with the introduction and development of the
WP:GEOLAND standard.
All the same I am very OK with a redirection strategy as it is at least favoured by
WP:PRESERVE so long as the data redirected is sourced to a reliable source (i.e., not just GEONames/Net).
FOARP (
talk)
18:23, 20 March 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.
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.
Non-notable location
Hyperwave11 (
talk)
10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It does not meet notability guidelines, as no relevant sources can be found citing its notability, instead just results for plane tickets and weather.reply
Delete? I agree with Pontificialbus, couldn't find any sources about the subject but maybe something its the native name could help. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹
[user |
talk]
16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:V. I get a pretty bad sinking feeling reading this because I get the impression this may have been a common issue with this editor's mass-created articles, and
they're the most prolific article-creator on Wiki. I've added a health-warning to that particular rankings list as I think some editors were just mass-creating stubs in order to rank higher on it.
FOARP (
talk)
13:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think we've got another case of someone producing cookie-cutter location micro-stubs in order to bulk out their article-creation stats here. I just searched
"is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" and got 66 hits, all of them sourced only to GeoNames (an unreliable source), all of them by Encyclopaedus, all created in the same stub-creation session in July 2008. All except three of them 25-29 words in length according to the search stats. Every one of these 63 articles is a
WP:V fail at present since they simply say "X is a village in Chandpur district in the Chittagong division" with no information that will allow you to actually identify where/what they are. Of the remaining three, one has a disambiguation notice at the top and is otherwise the same as the 63 I just described. Of the two that aren't the same, neither has an additional reference but they do provide some additional information that might help you know where they are (famous local people in one, local mosques in the other). TL;DR probably we should delete all the "village" stubs in the above search except
Mustafapur and
Aingiri.
Comment Editors who've been around awhile may remember article creator
Encyclopædius as Dr. Blofeld. They created many, many settlement articles in good faith using an automated script. As I recall, they got through the As, Bs, and were well into the Cs before the community stopped them. Later in their career they
expressed distaste for generic stubs of the form "xxx is a village". I believe, although I can't find the post, that they also admitted a measure of regret at having created so many, and tried to delete some, but were overruled on the grounds that
Wikipedia is a gazetteer.
If you use
https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ to search Bangladesh for names beginning with Banstali, you'll get three results, one of which is located at 23.201394, 90.719608, as described in the article. So I have to disagree with participants who say it's
unverifiable. Whether a better source, multiple sources, or sources with a greater depth of coverage, should be required is a different question. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Worldbruce - Many thanks for this insightful contribution. This certainly illuminates better what was going on. I would make the following comments:
What can be created by a script may (with more work, and where there has been no further content added) be deleted with a script.
G7 provides a good rationale for doing this if the original author wants them gone and no-one has contributed any content since creation.
Even if the source were reliable, this would still be a
WP:GEOLAND fail as there is no evidence here of either legal recognition or notability through
WP:GNG.
The article describes this location as a "village", which is basically original research since the GeoNames database describes it only as a "Populated place", which on the face of it is a much broader term than "village" and would include single buildings, camps etc.
FOARP (
talk)
10:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)reply
For most village articles in Bangladesh, the 2011 census' community report for the relevant district is a second reliable source, and using it to confirm they're legally recognized is fairly trivial (after accounting for the fact that there isn't one standard way of transliterating Bengali, so a number of variants must be considered). For Chandpur:
Alumura p. 50,
Amanullapur (as Amanullahpur) p. 48,
Asrafpur (as Ashrafpur) p. 64,
Baidyanathpur p.79,
Baluthupa (now divided into East and West Baluthupa union parishads) p. 52, etc.
[1] Banstali is an exception. Perhaps it no longer exists or has taken a new name.
For nearly all these "xxx is a village" articles, reliable sources exist that demonstrate existence and legal recognition, so because Wikipedia is a gazetteer, I doubt you will succeed in deleting them. You might, however, be able to build support for redirecting them into "List of villages in yyy district" articles. Gazetteers are mostly a list of one-sentence descriptions, they don't have a separate page or article about every entry. I see that you've reached out to Encyclopædius on their talk page. From their "The best thing ... redirect the small village stubs" comment, it appears that they might support this approach. What do you think of it?
If "List of villages in yyy district" articles were created to be targets of redirection, what information should they list about each village? Administrative geographic context (which upazila and union parishad they're in), geographic coordinates, and population? For Bangladesh, there would be 64 lists, one for each district, and for Chandpur there would be (or it could grow to) in the neighborhood of 1500 list entries. An alternative would be to redirect villages to the smallest enclosing administrative unit, the union parishad. That would lead to embedded lists of more manageable length, but would require 4,554 target articles, only about 500 of which currently exist (and, like the village articles, they're so crappy I really wish they didn't exist).
@
Worldbruce: - GeoNet is also highly unreliable as to whether a location is populated, since it is created by the same people that created
GNIS, using the same methodology. Work on mass-created California articles has uncovered many "populated places" sourced to GNIS that are in fact bridges, sidings, factories, oil wells, springs, mines etc. etc. Wiki is a Gazetteer, but it is not a Gazette of every location in the world regardless of legal recognition, population, or notability. Things have changed significantly in the is regard since 2008, particularly with the introduction and development of the
WP:GEOLAND standard.
All the same I am very OK with a redirection strategy as it is at least favoured by
WP:PRESERVE so long as the data redirected is sourced to a reliable source (i.e., not just GEONames/Net).
FOARP (
talk)
18:23, 20 March 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.