Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kürd Mahrızlı


 * 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  Snowball keep - This is going nowhere. I give up. -- Explodicle (T/C) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Kürd Mahrızlı

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Insufficient sources to establish notability. Explodicle (T/C) 17:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Looks like a village to me. . Azerbaijani sources on the net are not nearly as plentiful as they are in English, but I will presume in the history of the world other sources do exist on this village in print form.--Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that it is a village. Presuming that sources must exist is inadequate; the burden is on you to actually find sources if you want to keep this article. They do not need to be in English. -- Explodicle (T/C) 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Towns, villages and other settlements are considered inherently notable regardless of size.
 * Would you please link to the guideline, policy, or clear consensus where this was established? WP:INHERENT does not appear to be widely supported. -- Explodicle (T/C) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is widely and strongly supported. See WP:OUTCOMES#Places. There has been a clear long-standing consensus that verified towns are notable regardless of size.  Having to have debates over the "notability" of each and every of the tens of thousands of towns, villages in the world would be an extremely counter-productive activity to this project when time and resources would be better spent dedicated to the creation and improvement of articles. You'll see as other editors weigh in on this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, the common outcome would contradict the notability guideline. It's a useful informational page, but not really something the community has agreed upon. -- Explodicle (T/C) 03:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...I've added "speedy" now that the nom has acknowledged it's a village. For one user who doesn't agree with that to be demanding sources about a village with multiple spellings in a country that uses a language not heavily used on the net is silly wikilawyering. Even the Azerbaijan Wikipedia article lists a source, but as expected it appears only in print, which is still valid.--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does this source actually say? It might not be directly in detail and different Wikipedias sometimes have different standards. -- Explodicle (T/C) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know right now because it's only in print. The "If I can't see the source right now on the internet then it must be ignored" mentality is something I strongly disagree with.  But it is a verified standalone village so it really doesn't matter anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that mentality as well. If you (or any non-SPA) can verify that the source is detailed, I'll take your word for it and withdraw the nomination. -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, an article of a standalone town of this size in the US or UK would never get deleted. Demanding deletion of an article just because Azerbaijani or Kurdish internet sources aren't readily available as they are in English is a textbook case of systemic bias, --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the long-standing consensus at AfD that all populated settlements are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep real places are inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The consistent consensus here is that all inhabited settlements are notable. Attempts to make a formal rule have foundered over the difficulty of defining a settlement, but there is no question but a village is such.   (in contrast to a neighborhood or a housing tract) We make the rules here by what we do as well as by what we say.    DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep please read WP:GNG. Every place is inherently notable for its own right as long as it is verifiable. Could be expanded from the corresponding Azeri Wikipedia article, added a template. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does WP:GNG say this? I'm missing it. -- Explodicle (T/C) 12:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just asked you to read it. It says in short that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". Maashatra11 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are you actually saying? Should we follow the GNG or this essay? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say both. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So where's the significant coverage regarding this village? -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the source in the Azeri language mentioned in the article. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's a good source? Have you read it? We should hold paper sources to the same standards as internet sources. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I cannot answer this question. If you REALLY want to know and inquire into the subject, you can ask the Azeri contributor who added the source and information about this village in the Azeri Wikipedia here :. I can see he's a very active contributor; so I guess he'll be happy to tell you more about the village and about that source. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to do this research. It's yours. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can say the same about every other offline source. I don't see the point of your argument. Were you serious when you said "It's not my job to do this research. It's yours."? I didn't quite understand what you meant. What are you pointing to? Maashatra11 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're expected to actually read the sources you use to support your claims of notability. If you can't read Azeri, then Google can translate it. I'm not even asking anyone to scan it, transcribe it, translate it, or quote it; all I'm asking is for any one of you who supports keeping to verify that a substantive article can in theory be written. Heck, at this point I won't even ask that you do it immediately - we can redirect to Qubadli Rayon until you find something and then restore the article. I'll be satisfied if one keeper here, anyone, does any actual research to improve this article. Seriously. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not expect every article to be as perfect as you wish, there's no need to hurry. This specific article is IMO quite in a good state, compared to thousands of other village article which constitute merely of the name of the village, its country, and a single reference. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, why do we need to have an article right now? Can't it wait until someone finds that source? Wikipedia isn't a travel guide (not that I'm straying from WP:N) and I'd certainly say the same thing about all the other similar stuff that exists. -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What should we wait for? Sources exist already. If they don't satisfy you, that doesn't mean that they don't satisfy the whole Wikipedia community. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We should wait for someone who is actually willing to do some research. -- Explodicle (T/C) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm truly sorry to say this, but from what I can see from your comments, you express a very bad faith and your comments are reminiscent of various disruptive editing patterns such as WP:WL, WP:GAME and WP:PS. Your challenging questions are by no means for the purpose of reaching a concensus, but rather to demonstrate a personal standpoint. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're really sorry to say it, say it on my talk page and leave this page for discussing the matter at hand, not me. If asking for you to not attack my character during a deletion discussion constitutes wikilawyering, I apologize. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry again if you feel bad about what I said, but I don't want to address you personally on your talk page, I was just talking in the course of this discussion and your comments. What constitutes behaviours reminiscent of wikilawyering is what you said above in the whole discussion, not specifically "asking for you to not attack my character during a deletion discussion". I considered my words very carefully when I said that you seem to express bad faith, and I didn't mean to "attack" you Maashatra11 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Water under the bridge. Now, I've been sticking to notability this whole time. What we've got here is a tiny little village with no significant coverage; do we even know the approximate population? No one has actually presented a source that actually refutes my non-notability claims. One source that might, but none of us have actually read it. So whose job is it to check? The guy who wants it deleted, or the guys who insist the source is good enough? -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never insisted this source was "good enough". It might as well be a bad source, whose verifiability can be checked if you ask the Azeri contributor who added it. IMO, and I quote the other editors who voted here, "real places are inherently notable". I have nothing to add to that. "Significant coverage" isn't a clear term; If this village exists, it could be assumed that various sources about it in Azerbaijani exist too (such as the one out there already) but unfortunately no editor has yet taken the time to cite specific sources in Wikipedia. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So whose responsibility is it to check this source? Mine or yours? -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of those caring about verifiability of sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So the burden of checking a source lies on whoever doubts it. Thanks. -- Explodicle (T/C) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2010 (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.