Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirpichli, Turkmenistan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. TrangaBellam has provided useful sourcing here that could show that this topic meets GNG, but its substance has largely not been discussed, and the suggestion of reframing the article as one about the oil field has not been discussed either. Conversely, the argument by FOARP that a standalone page is not viable even if GEOLAND is met is also grounded in policy (per WP:NOPAGE), and hasn't been discussed in detail either. As such there just isn't any consensus here, though the "keep" opinions are marginally stronger. I would suggest a talk page discussion about whether a reframed article is viable before a new AfD is opened. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Kirpichli, Turkmenistan
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Geostub made by who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs.

"Keep" !voters in the recent AfD failed to demonstrate that the article meets WP:GEOLAND, which requires either legal recognition or sufficient SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Comments such as "All settlements are notable" (This editor also cited a Weather.com entry, a source which is notorious for repeating database errors); "A gas condensate field nearby is a source of natural gas"; "At least it was a settlement in 1930s. Very likely it is a settlement now. and two comments stating that it meets GEOLAND with no evidence; are misinterpretations of WP:GEOLAND that should have been thrown out. This guideline has never stated that all settlements are notable, or that demonstrating something is not a hoax is sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 18:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly sourced stub which does not meet notability requirements. JonnyDKeen (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GEOLAND. – The Grid  ( talk )  21:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Normally I would oppose an AFD so quickly after the previous one, but the previous AFD was clearly wrong decided. We DO NOT just keep articles simply because a place exists, especially not ones that exist according to bad sources. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. There is no evidence of legal recognition, and no evidence of a WP:GNG pass here, and so this is a WP:N fail. FOARP (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - As two other nominations (Articles for deletion/Makhtumkala and Articles for deletion/Tasharvat) attest to, the nominator has not been diligent enough in finding sources and such reckless deletion sprees can only increase our systematic (Eurocentric) bias.
 * Sources unanimously agree that it is a gas-condensate field:A lot of details—relevant to petroleum engineering—are available. Redefine the scope of article, accordingly. Also,TrangaBellam (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam - These are two passing mentions, neither shows either the legal recognition required for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass, nor a WP:GNG-pass. Gas condensate fields are not automatically notable. Wells are not automatically notable. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Legal recognition: p. 203 (pdf page 59) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ....broken link. To Openstreetmap. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for providing that. Since you read the language, would you be willing to describe that document and what it says about Kirpichli for those of us who can't? –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * P.59 of that PDF doesn't mention "Kirpichli". From what I can understand of it using machine translation, it states that the village of Kirpili changed its name to Kerpiçli. Assuming that "Kirpichli" is a romanisation of "Kerpiçli", this contradicts what the article says, which is that Kirpili is a neighbouring village. EDIT: and TrangaBellam knows this because they redirected Kirpili to this page without discussion just yesterday. Interestingly the location given for Kirpili in that old article is empty, open desert in a completely different part of Turkmenistan.
 * And, just to make sure this is mentioned, we need evidence that this is a legally recognised populated place, which a renaming of locations doesn't necessarily show. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of significant coverage that could be used to write an article about the place. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , the nominator argues the recent AfD failed to demonstrate that the article meets WP:GEOLAND, which requires either legal recognition OR sufficient SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. (My emphases.)In my replies to FOARP, I proved that the place is legally recognized. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looked, and there is no "Kirpichli" mentioned on p. 59 of this PDF, which is hosted on openstreetmap, a wiki-like website. Instead this document apparently describes the change in name of the village of "Kirpili" to the name "Kerpiçli". Even assuming that "Kerpichli" is the romanisation of "Kerpiçli", my confidence in the research that went into this article (which describes Kirpili as a neighbouring village, not as the former name of the village...) is not improved. Looking at the location, there is literally nothing at the co-ordinates given in the article but an empty field. Or at those given in the article for Kirpili that was redirected without discussion to Kirpichli yesterday, which shows open desert in a completely different part of Turkmenistan. Google maps also gives another location for a Kirpichli in Turkmenistan that is open desert, with no buildings shown at the location.
 * And let's suppose it is possible to confirm this place exists and is legally recognised - what actual article can we write here? Isn't redirecting to district level and listing it there a much better way of presenting the same data? FOARP (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , the document was uploaded by Alan Mustard, former ambassador of USA to Turkmenistan and Chair of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. He described it as Collection of Turkmenistan government decrees and parliamentary resolutions regarding geographic names, from 1992 to 2018. This collection is not all-inclusive. Documents are in either the Russian or Turkmen languages. Do you suspect that a former US diplomat is making up stuff?It is indeed a romanization. What is your language proficiency in Turkmen? "obanyň ozalky ady" translates to "old name of the village" (p. 49) while "obanyň täze ady" trasnlates to "new name of the village." (p. 64)I do not understand from where you are getting the coordinates - I have not added them.I have previously suggested redefining the scope of the article. There exists tons of sources about the oil field: Turkmen Petroleum Institute's "20 years of Kirpili Oil Fields" (1984)—some 175 pages of intricate discussions about initial explorations, surveys, capacities, issues, administration, and niche technical discussions—is a decent one to start with. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The co-ordinates are from the articles themselves, which were clearly created carelessly. It is very apparent that we don't, actually, know where this place is supposed to be. We also don't really know if this place is actually populated, do we? We are simply assuming that a Turkmen obanyň is necessarily populated, but I've seen this situation before with Iranian ābādī and Turkish mahalle (which also translate as "village" but in reality can be just a rural location). Remember we need evidence that the location is both legally recognised and that it is populated, and even then, if no real article can be written, a redirect to district level is just a better way of organising information.
 * Of course if there are at least two independent, reliable sources about the oilfield this is a refactoring that I'd support. Hopefully these documents would at least identify where this place is supposed to be. FOARP (talk)
 * FOARP, the Turkmen Government has not conducted any census since 1995, whose data was very strange and is widely believed to be fabricated to various degrees. The next census was held in 2012 (with some pomp) but the data never made it to the masses. The website claimed to be on the verge of releasing the data for about a year before vanishing overnight. So, no: you will not be getting any evidence about demographics of any village.
 * I have never been to Turkey. Cannot comment upon them.
 * This settlement developed out of the oilfield (mostly field-engineers etc.) and will stay as long as the oilfield runs. I will be adding the coordinates, based on my notes. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In case you think me to be some avowed inclusionist, check my !vote at Articles for deletion/Sansy, Turkmenistan. I have no problems in deleting articles that are actually non-notable, even accounting for vernacular sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only nominated a few months ago and survived easily (not just no consensus). This is definitely too soon to be nominating again. Does appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. Contributors to the previous discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that it passes GEOLAND? What sources have you found that would support that? –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Being bold and relisting this - please present sourcing on how this subject meets WP:GNG and/or WP:GEOLAND.
 * Keep per TrangaBellam and Necro.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if it was made by a blocked user (because that's how I roll)..... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe that the book '20 years of Kirpili Oil Fields' is a non-trivial, in-depth source on the subject. Considering the other sources that TrangaBellam has provided, I believe that even if it cannot satisfy GEOLAND, it can satisfy GNG, as information on Turkmenistan is very sparse, and that the book on exploration is a significant source capable of satisfying GNG.Gorden 2211 (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per User:TrangaBellam and User:Gorden 2211. Sourcing is adequate, and the objections seem nitpicky, not to say POINT-y, especially as it was already discussed at AfD quite recently and kept.Ingratis (talk) 14:42, 26 December 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.