Home • Search • Translate
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 delete. Obvious consensus to delete this particular article. I see some agreement that the other 5k should be deleted as well, however, I don't think an individual AfD is the appropriate place to decide this. I echo Hog Farm's suggestion that a community discussion be held (AN or wherever else is deemed suitable) to see if there is a wide consensus for mass deletion or draftification. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi

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

Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOLAND. This is not a village, but only an ābādī. There are three kinds of ābādīs in Iran: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site (such as gas station, mine, etc). Calling this ābādī a village is an original research done by the creator. The subject of this article is definitely a farm, as its name suggests. Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi means "Farm of Mr. Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi". The population of the ābādī was not reported in the 2006 census. The ābādī was not even registered in the 2011 census. Its population was reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. There are at least 7,092 more articles like this on the English Wikipedia. This is indeed a mass deletion request. Also see User talk:Carlossuarez46#Places in Iran. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported provides the full list of Iranian places with the phrase "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported". Although a WP search returns 7,092 results, that includes some duplicates and there are actually 5,576 articles at hand. Reywas92 Talk 07:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A big mistake by the creator who has not shown so far that he can read or understand Persian. It may take several years to clean up this mess in all language editions of Wikipedia (including enwiki, arwiki, svwiki, and even fawiki). There are 98,000 ābādīs in Iran, of which only 46,000 are villages. Currently, there is no hard-and-fast rule to determine which ābādī is a village and which one is not. But the Iranian Ministry of Interior appears to be working on it; they are assigning unique codes to all villages and the like. There is no guarantee that the result of their work will be published online, so we should not wait for them. According to a 2017 RFC at fawiki, only villages are notable. That being said, enwiki should not rely on fawiki. As an established editor of fawiki, I know for a fact that that project lacks self-confidence and is completely dependent on the English Wikipedia from head to toe. Persian Wikipedia has shamefully deferred to the English Wikipedia with regard to the villages of Iran 🤦 4nn1l2 ( talk) 04:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Negligent mass-production assuming any name in the census is a "village", even if the name does not suggest that. Even if so, there is not automatic notability for a place with no known population. Although this location does not have coordinates connected, all of the similar pages without population I checked pointed to isolated farms. I believe these articles lack adequate verification that they are in fact villages, that very small human habitations are not necessarily notable, and nonetheless they do not pass WP:NGEO which exludes "maps and tables" in establishing notability. Reywas92 Talk 06:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In addition to this article, I recommend and nominate deleting all of Carlossuarez46's unreliable articles about village adn places which have no verifiable source and aren't village. Also i found many of article about places in other countries such as Gällö in Sweden which have been translated in FAWI and i am going to nominate all of them for deletion in next step Shahram 07:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All 7,092 - As has amply been demonstrated above, the mere existence of an abadi is not sufficient to pass WP:Geoland. It does not show a legally-recognised populated community exists (or ever existed) with that name, as a bare mention in a registry it also does not constitute significant coverage for the purpose of WP:GNG. That the entry for each one says that no-one was reported as living there shows that the edition of the census the author (Carlossuarrez46 in most, maybe all cases) consulted was not a list of populated places. We can either go through these 7,092 articles 1-by-1 - a process that will take years and clog up AFD/PROD - or we can deal with this issue properly in a single bulk deletion. Doing it in a single bulk deletion is justified under the principle of WP:TNT - these articles were created en masse, mostly by an admin, without caring whether they were at all notable, they are a complete mess and the only viable option is to start over. Just to emphasise this: Every single one of these articles literally states that the location is not known to be populated according to the source used.
This is the search used to identify these GEOfails. None of these articles appears to be longer than about 100 words. Selecting a 10 examples at random:
  • Kafeh Asaish Laleh. Literally "Laleh Asayesh Cafe". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2012. Appears to be a cafe.
  • Mowtowr-e Hoseyn Sohrabi. Literally "Mechanic Hoseyn Sohrabi". created by Carlossuarrez in 2013. Appears to be the site of a car-mechanic.
  • Madras Cooperative Farm. Created by Carlosssuarrez46 in 2012. I really don't think any further comment is needed on this one - a farm is not a presumed WP:GEOLAND pass.
  • Mazraeh-ye Najafabad-e Bazud. Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. Google translate renders this as "Najaf Farm Abadzud". Appears to be just a farm.
  • Tolombeh-ye Hajj Fathollah Mohammady. Literally "The pump of Hajj Fathullah Muhammad". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. No further comment.
  • Qaleh-ye Hajj Mirza Aghasi. Literally "Haj Mirza Aghasi's Castle". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. Not a community.
  • Tolombeh-ye Deh Alavi Fariyab. Apparently "The pump up [from?] the Alawite Faryab". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013. No further comment.
  • Adareh Ghaleh-ye Kuhdasht. Literally "Kushdat Grain Office". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2012. No further comment.
  • Dam Tang-e Pir Murad. Literally "The old man's narrow tail". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013. No idea what this is, it may be a geographical feature, it may be anything, it probably isn't a populated place.
It means Close to Mr. Pir Morad's Strait Shahram 14:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Poshteh-ye Ab Chendar. Literally "stack of water", maybe a water tower? Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013.
What emerges from the above is a consistent pattern of behaviour that we have seen also in the mass-creation of stubs in California based on GNIS data - negligent article creation en masse. FOARP ( talk) 07:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - impossible to disagree with the nominator's reasoning. I would suggest PROD for some of these mass creations and AfD for ones where there is at least a claim to notability (i.e. at least some assertion that it was at one point an actual community and not just a well or café). Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Spiderone - I understand the hesitancy to mass-delete, but we’ve seen with California GNIS stubs also created by Carlossuarrez46 that AFD’ing/PROD’ing these stubs simply leads to both processes becoming clogged. The normal response of the admins who have to review all the PRODs is (paraphrasing) “why aren’t you dealing with these in bulk? Why are you doing them one-by-one and making my job impossible?”. In this case we have more than 7,000 articles all of which appear to be Geofails - even doing 20 a day that’s going to take an entire year to clear. Surely there has to be a point where we just say WP:TNT? It is farcical that an editor could negligently create thousands of articles spending maybe 1 minute on each, but we should spend a week or more in Prods/AFDs for each one on the off-chance that a few of them might be notable? Moreover these articles are actively harmful since they lead to supposed locations being created on e.g., Google Maps. FOARP ( talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Spiderone I suggest deleting all articles and if the author claims to be well-known, notable and reputable for each article, he can request a revival of the article for review, just like other articles. Shahram 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that the problem needs to be addressed, one way or another and that the majority do need to go - there's no debate about that. I'm just concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater that's all. Even if 99% of them are junk, mass deletion would still take down about 70 articles on places that might actually exist, for example. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is no concern about that 1% and if these 1% are known they will be created by users in the future surely. Creating 70 articles is definitely better than reviewing and talking to delete 7000 articles and editor's and user's time will be saved. It's like hiring a $ 1,000 security guard for a shop which is stolen about $ 10 a month. Which do you prefer? Shahram 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Spiderone - What Shahramrashidi says, plus in this case, that would be 70 articles that at present literally state that the source they're using doesn't even say they are or have ever been populated, all of which can be re-created by someone more familiar with the subject-matter. Actually, our experience has been that the very existence of these stub articles dissuades people from writing proper articles on these localities. I am very much not a deletionist, but the existence of many thousands of fake articles about supposed villages that don't exist, but which are then mirrored onto Google Maps and other websites and may lead to people to go to a place believing it to be an inhabited place when it is in fact an empty piece of land, makes me think that we should treat these articles as a serious problem. FOARP ( talk) 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • These are all mechanically made but of course any with content added since creation could be excluded. It seems that including "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported" is a statement itself that there isn't notability. Reywas92 Talk 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Exactly. Writing that is a direct admission that there's no evidence in the sources referred to that it was ever actually a populated place, must less a legally recognised community. Every one of these articles has a had a few edits since being created to fix templates and so-forth, but I haven't seen any with substantive content added. FOARP ( talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Articles regarding Iranian ābādīs can be divided into 3 groups:
    1. Those that are unpopulated and the article itself confesses this reality. There are 7,091 such articles on the English Wikipedia. All of them should be wiped out with this very AfD.
    2. Those with a population less than 100 people and 20 familes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojamaveh-ye Mowtowr Hay Chah-e Rihan. These can be PRODed. The words Mowtowr, Chah, etc in their names show red flags. If one (such as the creator) believes these are indeed villages, the burden of proof should be on himself (i.e., the creator).
    3. Those with a population more than 100 people or 20 families, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh. These should be reviewed one by one in AfD. Take Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye 28 Zurzamand for example. It does not have a proper name. It means "the deep well No. 28 of Zurzamand". But this ābādī has converted into a village with a proper name. Its new name is Bahar ("Spring" in the meaning of season) as you can see at fawiki: fa:بهار (جغتای). If one believes these are NOT villages, the burden of proof should be on himself (i.e., the AfD nominator).
  • Does this roadmap work for you? 4nn1l2 ( talk) 22:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per 4nn1l2's categories. These 7000+ articles fail WP:GEOLAND which states "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability"; their existence is sourced only to a census table spreadsheet. – dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree with 4nn1l2's suggested strategy. It really is well past time we did something about these mass-created location articles as they risk causing real-world harm (eg people going to a location thinking there is a populated settlement there when there isn’t). In this case we have a perfect example of 7091 articles that really have to go because they openly state that they are not notable. I’d also strongly advise against any close that fails to act on the consensus here for purely formal reasons (eg us not being able to add formal deletion notices to every one of the 7,091 articles). It is obvious that there are far, far too many of these articles for us to be able to follow fully the formal AFD/PROD process on every one of them and asking that this be done is simply saying that they will never be deleted. FOARP ( talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Excellent work Reywas92/ Hog Farm! FOARP ( talk) 08:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all that report no population. FOARP - IMO a single AFD is unlikely to delete all 5576 at once. But if this closes with consensus that the no population ones are all not appropriate article subjects, I think we ought to put in a batch request at WP:AN. Honestly, I really think the batch request is the best way to go. But I see no reason for the 5576 no population ones to hang around for very long. These are all blatant GEOLAND fails, and the page creator should have been aware of that. Carlos hasn't been mass-creating lately, or I would be opening a thread at AN to get their autopatrolled yanked. Hog Farm Talk 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all that report no population. per Hog Farm. There really needs to be better control of these mass-produced articles. A few minutes work creates hours and hours of clean-up. Glendoremus ( talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I only checked a tiny fraction of the articles listed, but Chak Chak, Yazd has actual content and is presumably notable. There are probably a few other such articles mixed in with the rest as well. Is there a way of filtering out the articles that are over a certain length? 3 kids in a trenchcoat ( talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This is an interesting case because it was created in 2004 by an IP editor and it already looked like this before carlos got to it. His edits actually changed the coordinates from the correct location to the wrong location. It's only 3 km away, but gosh, what a guy.... The new location is some sort of solitary structure (similar to the locations of some other articles), but not the article's actual topic. I did some basic filtering with AutoWikiBrowser checking for other articles with images or external links and found three results that weren't false positives: Herisht, a shrine similar to Chak Chak; Khanileh, Kermanshah, whose coordinates are not a village (this one also predates carlos); and Lavar-e Jamil, also not a village. Would have to investigate further to figure out how to filter by length or creator. Reywas92 Talk 07:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Can we filter the list for articles Carlos created? FOARP ( talk) 11:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Chak Chak, Yazd Is not village. It is a shrine of Zoroastrianism and you may find it at here in FAWIKI. The checking of these articles is easy. In language section of each articles you may click on فارسی for Iran articles. You may find it in FAWIKI. If it is a real location, then its content and citation will be different and more. For Chak Chak, Yazd check it. But if In Fawiki has been translated from EN, then the content and source will be same. Shahram
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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mazraeh-ye_Dariush_Baharvand_Ahmadi&oldid=1023261002"
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 delete. Obvious consensus to delete this particular article. I see some agreement that the other 5k should be deleted as well, however, I don't think an individual AfD is the appropriate place to decide this. I echo Hog Farm's suggestion that a community discussion be held (AN or wherever else is deemed suitable) to see if there is a wide consensus for mass deletion or draftification. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi

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

Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOLAND. This is not a village, but only an ābādī. There are three kinds of ābādīs in Iran: 1) village; 2) farm; 3) site (such as gas station, mine, etc). Calling this ābādī a village is an original research done by the creator. The subject of this article is definitely a farm, as its name suggests. Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi means "Farm of Mr. Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi". The population of the ābādī was not reported in the 2006 census. The ābādī was not even registered in the 2011 census. Its population was reported exactly 0 people in the 2016 census. There are at least 7,092 more articles like this on the English Wikipedia. This is indeed a mass deletion request. Also see User talk:Carlossuarez46#Places in Iran. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Hog Farm/C46 population not reported provides the full list of Iranian places with the phrase "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported". Although a WP search returns 7,092 results, that includes some duplicates and there are actually 5,576 articles at hand. Reywas92 Talk 07:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 04:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A big mistake by the creator who has not shown so far that he can read or understand Persian. It may take several years to clean up this mess in all language editions of Wikipedia (including enwiki, arwiki, svwiki, and even fawiki). There are 98,000 ābādīs in Iran, of which only 46,000 are villages. Currently, there is no hard-and-fast rule to determine which ābādī is a village and which one is not. But the Iranian Ministry of Interior appears to be working on it; they are assigning unique codes to all villages and the like. There is no guarantee that the result of their work will be published online, so we should not wait for them. According to a 2017 RFC at fawiki, only villages are notable. That being said, enwiki should not rely on fawiki. As an established editor of fawiki, I know for a fact that that project lacks self-confidence and is completely dependent on the English Wikipedia from head to toe. Persian Wikipedia has shamefully deferred to the English Wikipedia with regard to the villages of Iran 🤦 4nn1l2 ( talk) 04:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Negligent mass-production assuming any name in the census is a "village", even if the name does not suggest that. Even if so, there is not automatic notability for a place with no known population. Although this location does not have coordinates connected, all of the similar pages without population I checked pointed to isolated farms. I believe these articles lack adequate verification that they are in fact villages, that very small human habitations are not necessarily notable, and nonetheless they do not pass WP:NGEO which exludes "maps and tables" in establishing notability. Reywas92 Talk 06:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In addition to this article, I recommend and nominate deleting all of Carlossuarez46's unreliable articles about village adn places which have no verifiable source and aren't village. Also i found many of article about places in other countries such as Gällö in Sweden which have been translated in FAWI and i am going to nominate all of them for deletion in next step Shahram 07:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All 7,092 - As has amply been demonstrated above, the mere existence of an abadi is not sufficient to pass WP:Geoland. It does not show a legally-recognised populated community exists (or ever existed) with that name, as a bare mention in a registry it also does not constitute significant coverage for the purpose of WP:GNG. That the entry for each one says that no-one was reported as living there shows that the edition of the census the author (Carlossuarrez46 in most, maybe all cases) consulted was not a list of populated places. We can either go through these 7,092 articles 1-by-1 - a process that will take years and clog up AFD/PROD - or we can deal with this issue properly in a single bulk deletion. Doing it in a single bulk deletion is justified under the principle of WP:TNT - these articles were created en masse, mostly by an admin, without caring whether they were at all notable, they are a complete mess and the only viable option is to start over. Just to emphasise this: Every single one of these articles literally states that the location is not known to be populated according to the source used.
This is the search used to identify these GEOfails. None of these articles appears to be longer than about 100 words. Selecting a 10 examples at random:
  • Kafeh Asaish Laleh. Literally "Laleh Asayesh Cafe". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2012. Appears to be a cafe.
  • Mowtowr-e Hoseyn Sohrabi. Literally "Mechanic Hoseyn Sohrabi". created by Carlossuarrez in 2013. Appears to be the site of a car-mechanic.
  • Madras Cooperative Farm. Created by Carlosssuarrez46 in 2012. I really don't think any further comment is needed on this one - a farm is not a presumed WP:GEOLAND pass.
  • Mazraeh-ye Najafabad-e Bazud. Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. Google translate renders this as "Najaf Farm Abadzud". Appears to be just a farm.
  • Tolombeh-ye Hajj Fathollah Mohammady. Literally "The pump of Hajj Fathullah Muhammad". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. No further comment.
  • Qaleh-ye Hajj Mirza Aghasi. Literally "Haj Mirza Aghasi's Castle". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2014. Not a community.
  • Tolombeh-ye Deh Alavi Fariyab. Apparently "The pump up [from?] the Alawite Faryab". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013. No further comment.
  • Adareh Ghaleh-ye Kuhdasht. Literally "Kushdat Grain Office". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2012. No further comment.
  • Dam Tang-e Pir Murad. Literally "The old man's narrow tail". Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013. No idea what this is, it may be a geographical feature, it may be anything, it probably isn't a populated place.
It means Close to Mr. Pir Morad's Strait Shahram 14:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Poshteh-ye Ab Chendar. Literally "stack of water", maybe a water tower? Created by Carlossuarrez46 in 2013.
What emerges from the above is a consistent pattern of behaviour that we have seen also in the mass-creation of stubs in California based on GNIS data - negligent article creation en masse. FOARP ( talk) 07:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - impossible to disagree with the nominator's reasoning. I would suggest PROD for some of these mass creations and AfD for ones where there is at least a claim to notability (i.e. at least some assertion that it was at one point an actual community and not just a well or café). Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Spiderone - I understand the hesitancy to mass-delete, but we’ve seen with California GNIS stubs also created by Carlossuarrez46 that AFD’ing/PROD’ing these stubs simply leads to both processes becoming clogged. The normal response of the admins who have to review all the PRODs is (paraphrasing) “why aren’t you dealing with these in bulk? Why are you doing them one-by-one and making my job impossible?”. In this case we have more than 7,000 articles all of which appear to be Geofails - even doing 20 a day that’s going to take an entire year to clear. Surely there has to be a point where we just say WP:TNT? It is farcical that an editor could negligently create thousands of articles spending maybe 1 minute on each, but we should spend a week or more in Prods/AFDs for each one on the off-chance that a few of them might be notable? Moreover these articles are actively harmful since they lead to supposed locations being created on e.g., Google Maps. FOARP ( talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Spiderone I suggest deleting all articles and if the author claims to be well-known, notable and reputable for each article, he can request a revival of the article for review, just like other articles. Shahram 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that the problem needs to be addressed, one way or another and that the majority do need to go - there's no debate about that. I'm just concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater that's all. Even if 99% of them are junk, mass deletion would still take down about 70 articles on places that might actually exist, for example. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
There is no concern about that 1% and if these 1% are known they will be created by users in the future surely. Creating 70 articles is definitely better than reviewing and talking to delete 7000 articles and editor's and user's time will be saved. It's like hiring a $ 1,000 security guard for a shop which is stolen about $ 10 a month. Which do you prefer? Shahram 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Spiderone - What Shahramrashidi says, plus in this case, that would be 70 articles that at present literally state that the source they're using doesn't even say they are or have ever been populated, all of which can be re-created by someone more familiar with the subject-matter. Actually, our experience has been that the very existence of these stub articles dissuades people from writing proper articles on these localities. I am very much not a deletionist, but the existence of many thousands of fake articles about supposed villages that don't exist, but which are then mirrored onto Google Maps and other websites and may lead to people to go to a place believing it to be an inhabited place when it is in fact an empty piece of land, makes me think that we should treat these articles as a serious problem. FOARP ( talk) 16:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • These are all mechanically made but of course any with content added since creation could be excluded. It seems that including "At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported" is a statement itself that there isn't notability. Reywas92 Talk 19:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Exactly. Writing that is a direct admission that there's no evidence in the sources referred to that it was ever actually a populated place, must less a legally recognised community. Every one of these articles has a had a few edits since being created to fix templates and so-forth, but I haven't seen any with substantive content added. FOARP ( talk) 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Articles regarding Iranian ābādīs can be divided into 3 groups:
    1. Those that are unpopulated and the article itself confesses this reality. There are 7,091 such articles on the English Wikipedia. All of them should be wiped out with this very AfD.
    2. Those with a population less than 100 people and 20 familes, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojamaveh-ye Mowtowr Hay Chah-e Rihan. These can be PRODed. The words Mowtowr, Chah, etc in their names show red flags. If one (such as the creator) believes these are indeed villages, the burden of proof should be on himself (i.e., the creator).
    3. Those with a population more than 100 people or 20 families, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh. These should be reviewed one by one in AfD. Take Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye 28 Zurzamand for example. It does not have a proper name. It means "the deep well No. 28 of Zurzamand". But this ābādī has converted into a village with a proper name. Its new name is Bahar ("Spring" in the meaning of season) as you can see at fawiki: fa:بهار (جغتای). If one believes these are NOT villages, the burden of proof should be on himself (i.e., the AfD nominator).
  • Does this roadmap work for you? 4nn1l2 ( talk) 22:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per 4nn1l2's categories. These 7000+ articles fail WP:GEOLAND which states "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability"; their existence is sourced only to a census table spreadsheet. – dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Agree with 4nn1l2's suggested strategy. It really is well past time we did something about these mass-created location articles as they risk causing real-world harm (eg people going to a location thinking there is a populated settlement there when there isn’t). In this case we have a perfect example of 7091 articles that really have to go because they openly state that they are not notable. I’d also strongly advise against any close that fails to act on the consensus here for purely formal reasons (eg us not being able to add formal deletion notices to every one of the 7,091 articles). It is obvious that there are far, far too many of these articles for us to be able to follow fully the formal AFD/PROD process on every one of them and asking that this be done is simply saying that they will never be deleted. FOARP ( talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Excellent work Reywas92/ Hog Farm! FOARP ( talk) 08:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all that report no population. FOARP - IMO a single AFD is unlikely to delete all 5576 at once. But if this closes with consensus that the no population ones are all not appropriate article subjects, I think we ought to put in a batch request at WP:AN. Honestly, I really think the batch request is the best way to go. But I see no reason for the 5576 no population ones to hang around for very long. These are all blatant GEOLAND fails, and the page creator should have been aware of that. Carlos hasn't been mass-creating lately, or I would be opening a thread at AN to get their autopatrolled yanked. Hog Farm Talk 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all that report no population. per Hog Farm. There really needs to be better control of these mass-produced articles. A few minutes work creates hours and hours of clean-up. Glendoremus ( talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I only checked a tiny fraction of the articles listed, but Chak Chak, Yazd has actual content and is presumably notable. There are probably a few other such articles mixed in with the rest as well. Is there a way of filtering out the articles that are over a certain length? 3 kids in a trenchcoat ( talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This is an interesting case because it was created in 2004 by an IP editor and it already looked like this before carlos got to it. His edits actually changed the coordinates from the correct location to the wrong location. It's only 3 km away, but gosh, what a guy.... The new location is some sort of solitary structure (similar to the locations of some other articles), but not the article's actual topic. I did some basic filtering with AutoWikiBrowser checking for other articles with images or external links and found three results that weren't false positives: Herisht, a shrine similar to Chak Chak; Khanileh, Kermanshah, whose coordinates are not a village (this one also predates carlos); and Lavar-e Jamil, also not a village. Would have to investigate further to figure out how to filter by length or creator. Reywas92 Talk 07:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Can we filter the list for articles Carlos created? FOARP ( talk) 11:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Chak Chak, Yazd Is not village. It is a shrine of Zoroastrianism and you may find it at here in FAWIKI. The checking of these articles is easy. In language section of each articles you may click on فارسی for Iran articles. You may find it in FAWIKI. If it is a real location, then its content and citation will be different and more. For Chak Chak, Yazd check it. But if In Fawiki has been translated from EN, then the content and source will be same. Shahram
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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mazraeh-ye_Dariush_Baharvand_Ahmadi&oldid=1023261002"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE