Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yusefabad, Ardabil

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. Overall consensus is that the topic does not meet WP:GEOLAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusefabad, Ardabil[edit]

[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)

Mass-created by Passportguy (talk · contribs) in 2009 based on an unreliable database https://tageo.com. There is something at the specified coordinates, but they are actually in East Azerbaijan Province, and the fact that this was not overwritten or redirected by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) when he mass-created Iranian village stubs is suspect. Neither of the Yusefabad stubs created by Carlossuarez46 matches this place. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The map pin is about 500 feet to the east of a settlement, but the name of the road going into the village is Yusefabad Road making it highly likely that is the name of the village also. Rename if necessary to correct the province name. SpinningSpark 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3665107526) and GeoNames have Jafarabad, Ahar (https://www.geonames.org/13585) as the village at this location, but GeoNames also has Yūsefābād (https://www.geonames.org/13097) nearby. As there is also the road name, they could be the same place, but a better source is needed for confirmation. There is also https://www.geonames.org/388861 in Ardabil, but that is probably Somokluy-e Olya or Somokluy-e Sofla. Peter James (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if Spinningspark is correct about the real village being half a kilometre away from the source used to create the article, this still leaves us with a number of issues:

No evidence of legal recognition (i.e., incorporation or the local-law equivalent). Not a pass for WP:GEOLAND#1.
No reliable sources for this place at all, so it fails WP:V. Neither Citypedia nor Tageo are reliable, as can be seen not least from the fact that they have this place at the wrong location. Both appear to be Wiki-type user-created sources, and thus not reliable. Geonames is also an unreliable source for the same reasons. For the avoidance of doubt, no, a road having the same name as this supposed village is not real evidence of existence.
No significant coverage for passing WP:GNG, both sources are just bare-mentions of the name of the place.

Also worth mentioning that this is another case where mass-creation/WP:MEATBOT violations have occurred, and are causing problems for us years after the fact. FOARP (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information – 500 feet is an awful lot closer than half a kilometre. SpinningSpark 12:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark - Doesn't change the basic point, does it? No reliable source says this place exists. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly, it does exist. The satellite view shows that. What we don't have is a reliable source for what it is called. SpinningSpark 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark - Plainly, there are some buildings (farm buildings? a factory?) at that location, and that is all that can be truthfully stated. There is nothing that passes any notability or verifiability guide this here Wiki has. Can you imagine having this discussion in any other area of Wikipedia content?

"There was definitely a film of some description released on that day, we just don't have a reliable source for what it was called, who was in it, or even what its content was"
"There was definitely a book published, we just don't have a reliable source for what it was called, who authored it, or what it was about"
"There is definitely a species living in that location, we just don't have a reliable source for what genus it belongs to, what its name is, or what its characteristics are"
"There's definitely a person with that birthday, we just don't know what their name is or who they are"

It's only in the GeoStub field that we get this kind of argument.

PS - worth noting that there is no corresponding FA wiki article, because FA wiki has been much more aggressive in cleaning up the stub articles that got transposed from EN Wiki to their wiki. A lot of the FA wiki editors got pretty annoyed at EN Wiki for continually keeping these articles about places that basically just don't exist, and they were the people who ultimately went to Carlossuarez46 and told him to stop. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree my rationale is weak, but please don't misrepresent it. I think we do know the name of the settlement for the reason I gave, so your analogies are straw men. SpinningSpark 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There is mention of the village in a British botanical expedition to the region from the 1930's. The account can be found here: https://doi.org/10.2307/4107686

It seems to be near a fresh water lake which may also have some significance in its own right. I suspect a Persian speaker could find better sources on it. It's hard though because of the neighborhood in Tehran of the same name. Chagropango (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it is the same place. The passage you are referring to is on page 66 I think: "The road to Teheran is followed for 25 miles, when the track leading to Astara bends to the left along the shores of the freshwater lake at Yusufabad". The starting point for this journey is Tabriz and Teheran is to the southeast (ie the wrong direction for our Yusefabad). Google maps shows a small lake, Quri Gol, at about that location (37.9207, 46.7026) whereas there does not seem to be any lakes anywhere near our Yusefabad. SpinningSpark 09:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we already have an article on it, Yusefabad, Bostanabad, and it is shown on gmaps at the western edge of the lake. SpinningSpark 09:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the place mentioned in this document likely not the same place we are talking about, but it is also not WP:SIGCOV but instead just a passing mention and therefore does not sustain a WP:GNG pass. It is also not evidence of legal recognition as a populated place required under WP:GEOLAND#1 - for the avoidance of doubt Iranian Abadis are not a class of legally-recognised populated place but isntead just reference points used in the Iranian census. Using satellite photos to come to the conclusion that a set of buildings not even at the location in the article, but merely close to it, are a village, and not instead a farm/factory or other set of buildings, is pure WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

I'll add in here that the problems with identifying where this place even is (the co-ords used above are not reliably sourced) are exactly why this kind of article should not be kept since they simply trash the information space as to what places exist where and under what name. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the same rationale as every single other one of these. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there's no known name for this "village", there should be no article on it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rationales for keeping this are not consistent with core policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. The verifiability policy says that we cannot have an article on something unless there are third-party reliable sources about it, and that the burden of proof for this is on those who want to keep the content. This is a non-negotiable policy which cannot be overidden by editorial judgement or local consensus. For a populated place, to satisfy this we need at minimum a reliable source which says the subject exists and is a populated place. The citations in the article are to unreliable sources, and the other evidence provided here is to GeoNames and OpenStreetMap (user-generated content, and therefore unreliable). Claims that the subject might exist because there is a nearby road with the same name are original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GEOLAND and V. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (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.