- 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) – Davey2010 Talk 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keshish Qeshlaqi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Census designated places are not notable Tylr00 ( talk) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG. Only 12 people? That isn't even a village. A google search found nothing of note, and there were no other sources. Looks pretty clear-cut to me. Joel.Miles925 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
-
WP:GEOLAND explicitly says that offially recognised places with very low, even zero, populations can be kept.
I do however note that the coordinates in the article seem to point to a mountain with no sign of habitation, so it would be good if someone who understands Persian could check out the census source. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Census data has nothing to do with notability per WP:GEOLAND Tylr00 ( talk) 18:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
- WP:GEOLAND starts with the words "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable", so census data have everything to do with it. They show that it is both populated and legally recognized. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Though editing as an IP, the editor appears to be quite knowledgeable and the nominator may have misunderstood what he or she is saying -- or what the reference to "census tract" in GEOLAND means. At any rate, if it can be proven to exist as a separate entity -- not a subdivision of a larger village or town -- I daresay this tiny village might meet GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- In the same sentence on WP:GEOLAND census-designated places are specifically excluded from notability. This nomination was based on that precisely. Tylr00 ( talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
- As Shawn said, you are misinterpreting the phrase " census tract", which has a very specific meaning that is only applicable to a very small number of census-designated places. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Right. Just to make it a little clearer to the nominator: a village is not a census tract -- or it isn't solely one. But census data could be helpful in verifying that such a small village exists. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- My point is not to discerne this village from a census track, but to say that per GEOLAND a population is not required to be considered notable, as abandoned places could be notable. Therefore, census data (i.e., number of inhabitants) has nothing to do with notability. So, this article is not notable because nothing worthy of posting has been or is written on this article Tylr00 ( talk) 02:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are still misinterpreting WP:GEOLAND, which I quoted above. If there is a reliable source showing that a place is legally recognised, such as a census entry, then it is considered notable. The stuff about census tracts only serves to confuse, and only applies to a handful of countries. It means that arbitrarily delineated areas used in some censuses are not "places" as meant by the guideline. A village is not arbitrarily delineated, and it's vanishingly unlikely that census tracts would be set up with a population as low as 12 - that would defeat the whole object of census tracts. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure what the nominator's trying to get at, since this place is recognized as a village, not a census tract or a census-designated place (which is an American concept anyway). At any rate, villages of any size are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. I'm not sure how one construes "a population is not required for notability" as "being recognized by a census does not establish notability", given that being included in a government-run census is in fact government recognition. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that per WP:GEOLAND, a large city or an abandoned village could be notable (therefore, having or not having population is not required), and in the same breath it states that areas only for the purpose of taking a census are not notable. Therefore, we're not looking at the population or acknowledgment of a "government" and being included in the census has nothing to do with notability. Please refer to the WP Tylr00 ( talk) 13:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please
take note of what everyone else is telling you. The stuff about census tracts in
WP:GEOLAND is just an esoteric case that applies to a vanishingly small number of places covered by censuses, and, personally, I wish it wasn't there because it leads to such confusion. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be using the best possible sources to show official recognition of a village.
By persisting with your idiosyncratic interpretation you are diverting the discussion away from the point that I made in my first edit here, that the coordinates given in the article point to a place high in the mountains that doesn't, per Google Earth, have any sign of human habitation. Either the coordinates are wrong or the census data have been misread, and it needs someone who reads Persian to check out the latter.86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please
take note of what everyone else is telling you. The stuff about census tracts in
WP:GEOLAND is just an esoteric case that applies to a vanishingly small number of places covered by censuses, and, personally, I wish it wasn't there because it leads to such confusion. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be using the best possible sources to show official recognition of a village.
- Keep So much wrong with nomination. Census designated places are an American concept, and in any event satisfy WP:GEOLAND and are something very different from census tracts, which generally don't. And this is a village in India, which also satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
While agreeing that the nominator's argument is invalid, I'm still concerned about the issue that I have raised twice above about the coordinates in the article pointing to a place near a mountain top with no sign of human habitation (and, by the way, this village is claimed to be in Iran, not India). I think that that's enough, before we can support keeping this, to ask that someone who can read Persian checks the census source to see if this article is mistaken in the claim that this village even exists, as it is obviously mistaken in its location.86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)- I clearly see buildings on the Google satellite view. I'm not sure what you mean by "no sign of human habitation." It's a small village to be sure, but it's a village. Zoom in and you'll see the buildings quite clearly. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what was wrong with me when I looked before, but I can see them now. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keshish Qeshlaqi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Census designated places are not notable Tylr00 ( talk) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:GNG. Only 12 people? That isn't even a village. A google search found nothing of note, and there were no other sources. Looks pretty clear-cut to me. Joel.Miles925 18:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
-
WP:GEOLAND explicitly says that offially recognised places with very low, even zero, populations can be kept.
I do however note that the coordinates in the article seem to point to a mountain with no sign of habitation, so it would be good if someone who understands Persian could check out the census source. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Census data has nothing to do with notability per WP:GEOLAND Tylr00 ( talk) 18:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
- WP:GEOLAND starts with the words "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable", so census data have everything to do with it. They show that it is both populated and legally recognized. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Though editing as an IP, the editor appears to be quite knowledgeable and the nominator may have misunderstood what he or she is saying -- or what the reference to "census tract" in GEOLAND means. At any rate, if it can be proven to exist as a separate entity -- not a subdivision of a larger village or town -- I daresay this tiny village might meet GEOLAND. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- In the same sentence on WP:GEOLAND census-designated places are specifically excluded from notability. This nomination was based on that precisely. Tylr00 ( talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00
- As Shawn said, you are misinterpreting the phrase " census tract", which has a very specific meaning that is only applicable to a very small number of census-designated places. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Right. Just to make it a little clearer to the nominator: a village is not a census tract -- or it isn't solely one. But census data could be helpful in verifying that such a small village exists. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- My point is not to discerne this village from a census track, but to say that per GEOLAND a population is not required to be considered notable, as abandoned places could be notable. Therefore, census data (i.e., number of inhabitants) has nothing to do with notability. So, this article is not notable because nothing worthy of posting has been or is written on this article Tylr00 ( talk) 02:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are still misinterpreting WP:GEOLAND, which I quoted above. If there is a reliable source showing that a place is legally recognised, such as a census entry, then it is considered notable. The stuff about census tracts only serves to confuse, and only applies to a handful of countries. It means that arbitrarily delineated areas used in some censuses are not "places" as meant by the guideline. A village is not arbitrarily delineated, and it's vanishingly unlikely that census tracts would be set up with a population as low as 12 - that would defeat the whole object of census tracts. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure what the nominator's trying to get at, since this place is recognized as a village, not a census tract or a census-designated place (which is an American concept anyway). At any rate, villages of any size are considered notable per WP:GEOLAND. I'm not sure how one construes "a population is not required for notability" as "being recognized by a census does not establish notability", given that being included in a government-run census is in fact government recognition. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that per WP:GEOLAND, a large city or an abandoned village could be notable (therefore, having or not having population is not required), and in the same breath it states that areas only for the purpose of taking a census are not notable. Therefore, we're not looking at the population or acknowledgment of a "government" and being included in the census has nothing to do with notability. Please refer to the WP Tylr00 ( talk) 13:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please
take note of what everyone else is telling you. The stuff about census tracts in
WP:GEOLAND is just an esoteric case that applies to a vanishingly small number of places covered by censuses, and, personally, I wish it wasn't there because it leads to such confusion. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be using the best possible sources to show official recognition of a village.
By persisting with your idiosyncratic interpretation you are diverting the discussion away from the point that I made in my first edit here, that the coordinates given in the article point to a place high in the mountains that doesn't, per Google Earth, have any sign of human habitation. Either the coordinates are wrong or the census data have been misread, and it needs someone who reads Persian to check out the latter.86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please
take note of what everyone else is telling you. The stuff about census tracts in
WP:GEOLAND is just an esoteric case that applies to a vanishingly small number of places covered by censuses, and, personally, I wish it wasn't there because it leads to such confusion. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be using the best possible sources to show official recognition of a village.
- Keep So much wrong with nomination. Census designated places are an American concept, and in any event satisfy WP:GEOLAND and are something very different from census tracts, which generally don't. And this is a village in India, which also satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
While agreeing that the nominator's argument is invalid, I'm still concerned about the issue that I have raised twice above about the coordinates in the article pointing to a place near a mountain top with no sign of human habitation (and, by the way, this village is claimed to be in Iran, not India). I think that that's enough, before we can support keeping this, to ask that someone who can read Persian checks the census source to see if this article is mistaken in the claim that this village even exists, as it is obviously mistaken in its location.86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)- I clearly see buildings on the Google satellite view. I'm not sure what you mean by "no sign of human habitation." It's a small village to be sure, but it's a village. Zoom in and you'll see the buildings quite clearly. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what was wrong with me when I looked before, but I can see them now. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 15:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.