Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD rationale was Not verified/ no reference/uknown place/it is not a village and was placed by User:Shahramrashidi.

I contested this as I saw that this village is at least alleged to have had a population at some point. Following further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as well as the creator's talk page, I now realise the issue and that maybe I was wrong to obstruct deletion.

The PROD was reapplied by User:Salome mi after I had already contested it. This article is no longer eligible for PROD as I contested that. I hope that this discussion can establish once and for all whether this was ever a community and whether it meets WP:GEOLAND. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping to those who took part in the previous discussions on this and other villages created by the same user., , ,  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Translates literally as "Well number 3". Probably just a well within a larger community and as such fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a consistent pattern of behaviour. FOARP (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This one is tricky. The population is quite high: 264 people, in 56 families. It is eligible to become a village with a proper name, because every ābādī with a population of at least 100 people or 20 families can potentially be a village. But still there is no evidence that this ābādī has become a village. Indeed, its population has decreased considerably over time and may have scattered altogether. This ābādī with the census code of 086707 had a population of 264 people in 56 families in the 2006 census, 221 people in 60 families in the 2011 census, and only 64 people in 21 families in the 2016 census. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete same as last talking about these articles. Shah ram 10:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this one too. I have not found any evidence on which shape this place is currently. Creating the article should we be with more precision (as well as avoiding original research). Salome mi (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a population, and http://www.geonames.org/6980592/chah-e-sevvom-jadid.html has an alternative name Chāh-e Shomāreh Seh and a Persian name identical to that in the article. There are some buildings at that location, and it looks like a populated place. Peter James (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That also has "Chah-e Sevvom" as an alternate name, which redirects to Chah-e Vagazari-ye Shomareh-ye Seh. The coordinate for that, since this article doesn't have any, point to a neighborhood near a "Beshne" which doesn't seem to have an article (and is not the same as Beshneh). Reywas92Talk 19:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which is the correct Chah-e Sevvom, could it be that it has been split into two areas for the census? Or could it be the same as http://www.geonames.org/6980579/chah-e-sevvom-qadim.html as that appears to be missing from the census unless it is under a different name. Looking at the place labelled as "Beshne", Geonames.org has a populated place "Maḩdūdeh-e Shahrak-e Boneh Kalāghī" and a police post "Pāsgāh-e Entez̧āmī-ye Boneh Kalāghī" This could be the same as Shahrak-e Boneh Kolaghi - Boneh Kalāghī (or Boneh Kolaghi) is also labelled as a populated place but seems to be the name of the area which consists of several places as both Geonames.org and Google put the label in slightly different locations both without buildings. Peter James (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Chah-e Sevvom means third well. chah-e-sevvom-jadid means new third well. chah-e-sevvom-qadim means old third well. Chāh-e Manūchehr Khān Seh in its history means the Well No.3 of Mr. Mauchehr Khan. All of them are not village or populated. Can you confirm geonames? It hasn't more information than this article. Article in WP has a dead and none notable reference but in Geonams even the author and etc. are not known and it has no any evidence or reference. It may uses an unknown database. Also you may see easily alternative names of well in your links in Geoname and translate it. You easily find it is a well only. Shah ram  23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * About Chah-e Vagazari-ye Shomareh-ye Seh in PDF document mentioned by Peter James have been indicated 8 no.s of Chah-e Vagazari (means Assigned or endowed well) including well No.1 ~ 8 (Item 56~ 63 )and Item 64 is Chah-e Vagazari Mr. Faraj Allah Yar Ahmadi (means Assigned or endowed well of Mr. Faraj Allah Yar Ahmadi). Also Chah-e Shomareh-ye Seh (item 52) has been indicated separatly. Shah ram 07:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * About Beshneh, it is known and notable village see here, here and here. Also Shahrak-e-Boneh Kolaghi is notable. look here and here but they are not related to notability of wells around Them. Maḩdūdeh-e Shahrak-e Boneh Kalāghī means around Shahrak-e Boneh Kalāghī. Can we confirm any shop, well, pump, gas station or like around them as notable village!? Shah ram 23:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The places in geonames are locations of groups of buildings, and within them the buildings look more like houses or farms than anything industrial; if they were in the UK they would probably be described as villages (or hamlets in some cases). What I don't know is whether this is one of them, possibly under a different name. The names used by geonames.org are not always accurate and it is not significant coverage or even a reliable source as anyone can add places (the names I linked to were imported from GEOnet Names Server), it's just that it can be useful for connecting names in lists to places on maps. Based on the population I would expect there to be something wherever this is, even if the census uses a well instead of the name of the village, and if it's a village, even if it is small, then if there are census statistics there can be an article. https://www.amar.org.ir/portals/0/census/1365/abadi/abadi65-jeld096.pdf mentions it in a list (on page 28 of the PDF), but I don't know what information there is, or if it is on any of the maps there. Peter James (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind information. As you told Geoname.org in not reliable source and we know it is right. About PDF document, thanks really for it. I hadn't seen it until now and was interesting for me. But i cant know how did you read page 28 of it? (it is hard for me too). Anyway the PDF document is for 34 years ago and an old census. On page 6, all of Abadi and village have been mentioned as Abadi including farm, village or etc. Then it don't gives enough information that we to know it is farm or village or any. But in newer census Abadi has been described and clearly separated to village, farm and etc. Also in newer Censuse, most of these places have been removed or reported as farm, ... similar places without poplulation which are no notable and we have talked more about Abadi in last mentioned discussion. Shah ram 07:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... as per the pdf, it's population has doubled, 264 (2007) compared to 122 (1986). My concern in general would be: what else info do we have for such places, only population rate?. Do we want to create a few hundreds of such short articles? I would combine all the articles under Rizab Rural District. Though some of the farms/districts might become important to have a separate article later in time as more geographical, cultural or agricultural details become available. Salome mi (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2021 (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.