Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech


 * 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   redirect to Dara-I-Pech District. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dara-I-Pech

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete and Redirect to Dara-I-Pech District. This article was created as one of a large series of identical, near-empty stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld on places in Afghanistan. Sadly, the database used to create these stubs is not really reliable, and there is no other evidence that a place with this name really exists (the district exists). In less than 24 hours, this "place" had two different names before this one (Darreh-ye Pich and Darreh-I-Pech), was the capital of the district, was equated with Mano Gai (the actual capital of the district), before settling at the current situation where it is no longer the capital and no longer the same as Mano Gai, but actually 10 km away from it.

Sadly, apart from the source used to create these stubs, no reliable sources are available to actually confirm that Dara-I-Pech is really a village, and not only the name of the district. No maps showing the village have been found. To give you an idea of how reliable the geographic names database is, just check what they give for the United States, where you have populated places like A and K, which list smack in the middle of Bountiful, Utah; or A Country Place, which is supposedly located in Lakewood (CDP), New Jersey. This database cannot be used to create articles on populated places without proper checking. The other sources given in the article don't establish that there is a village with this name (and not just a region, and a river called Pech Dara (or Peche River) as well). Further searches also didn't return any reliable sources that removed this doubt. Google does give many hits, but this is caused by the large number of commercial websites that also use the same database as their source. Looking for "A Sherton" in Google will give you similar results, even though it is just a "place" in the database which is actually a misspelling for Asherton, at the exact same location. Fram (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep You clearly have little idea about Afghanistan and places do you. Why do you think the district got its name "Dara-I-Pech District". Because the districts are generally always named after the traditional capital. This is verifiable and the village shows up on google maps visibly (although the coords need tweaking slightly to the north which I've done. Dara-I-Pech and Mano Gai are clearly visible on google maps as separate settlements which both exist. I suggest you take this issue with my "sub stubs" stubs elsewhere. As for dual main towns, this is common in Afghanistan. Samangan for instance is also widely known as Aibak and even Aibak District and province but Aibak is a suburb of Samangan and they lie in very close proximity. Actually I generally have very good experience of geonames identifying real settlements which appear on google maps and it is far from an unreliable source as you suggest. The database was clearly drawn up and settlements identified for a reason. Of course articles need further sources to be written fully but as a stub I think its fine initially. I actually prefer starting articles in the way I started Gwebin for instance but I also find creating them as stubs makes it easier to be expanded upon at a later date. If you've got a problem with them, expand them yourself or just move onto something else. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "This is verifiable" with a link to the clearly unreliable geographic.org? Have you even read the nomination? Apart from that: "If you've got a problem with them, expand them yourself or just move onto something else." is not how Wikipedia works: if I have a problem that the info in a certain article, and the very reason that a separate article exists, is unverifiable (in reliable sources), then I don't move on to something else, I nominate it for deletion. Your speedy keep boils down to "I know better, but I can't be bothered to actually give one reliable source to support my statement". Fram (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. The settlement clearly exists as it can be seen on a satellite zoom. However, indeed articles need multiple reliable sources to write about them. So given that sources cannot be found about this particularly place as an actual village for some reason, even if it is highly likely it does exist, then a redirect is fine. The infoformation which was given anyway was more suitable to the district article. A belligerent AFD is really not necessary as I agree with you mostly that creating them without further sources is not a good idea. I really don't like your conflicting attitude over this. Discuss it with me please. Also, why do you think I called for a ban on falling rain if I wasn't sympathetic to your views on mass generated content using databases?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a settlement close to the location given. We have no idea what its name is. As can be seen in the examples above, even for American places, this info is highly unreliable. Considering that Dara-I-Pech simply means "Valley of the Pech", there is no reason to believe that this district has been named after a specific village (I can't rule it out, but I see no reason to believe this). And that a belligerent AfD is not necessary and a redirect would do; well, I did redirect the article, which you undid and where you said on my talk: "Please DO NOT redirect Dara-I-Pech. It is clearly a settlement. If you have a problem with its existence as a village take it to AFD.♦ " You can hardly blame me for this... Fram (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No I can't, but I also did say I am far more sympathetic to you view about this that you might think and agree its certain;y not the best way to create content. The reason why I decided to go ahead with this is because a] we have them listed in the missing encyclopedic articles ready and dabbed in other pages for starting. b] Anomie had downloaded the coordinates to add to them afterwards and then they can be looked at and expanded. c] I tested at least a two dozen settlements prior to the run using geonames as an initial source and found them to identify real settlements which were mentioned in historical gazeteers. So don't paint me as some ignorant fool who is clueless how to build content. I found enough settlements which wer eincluded in geonames and also mentioned in other sources like Alishang to make me think the stub run was worthwhile. I know it is best to start each article individally with geonames as a start and other sources in google books or whatever to support it and is what I much prefer, but when we are missing sheer content it becomes far too tedious to be able to start every article in such a way. As for me being lazy, well, that's hilarious. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I call you "lazy"? Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You said "Your speedy keep boils down to "I know better, but I can't be bothered to actually give one reliable source to support my statement". " If that isn't implying I am idle and lazy then I don't know what is.. You really think I can't be bothered?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, either you couldn't find one, or you couldn't be bothered to present it. I assumed that you would never propose a "speedy keep" for an article where you couldn't find a reliable source, so the only remaining reason was that in this case, you couldn't be bothered. Fram (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If that were true I'd neither have bothered creating it or have added some historical info related to the district.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * geographic.org say they're getting their data from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and you can query their database directly here. I can't find Dara-I-Pech or any of the synonyms in it and the closest I can get is Darah-ye Pēch. Since this is listed as a stream rather than a populated place and the co-ordinates are very close I'm pretty sure this entry is for the Peche River. 'Delete and redirect per nom unless there is any further evidence this place exists. Hut 8.5 14:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2011 (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.