Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sykai


 * 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sykai

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

This geostub does not meet WP:NGEO or the WP:GNG. It has two sources, total, and Although the place probably did exist, no longer exists, and should be considered part of Galata. Since it's basically a duplicate article, a delete is in order, as Galata already includes everything on this article. While it should not influence the voting on this AfD, for context the creator was previously warned at ANI against mass-creating non-notable geostubs with minimal unverifiable sourcing, and subsequently retired. Toadspike (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly contain only minimal sourcing from atlases:
 * Toadspike (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am giving up soon because of the sheer number of these articles. If someone else would like to comb through to find articles that use <= 2 sources, that would be much appreciated. I do not mean to suggest that all of the user's page creations should be deleted; the fact that many are indeed valid makes this harder.
 * On a similar note, many of the redirects created by this user have seen no use and should probably also be deleted. Toadspike (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Toadspike (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am giving up soon because of the sheer number of these articles. If someone else would like to comb through to find articles that use <= 2 sources, that would be much appreciated. I do not mean to suggest that all of the user's page creations should be deleted; the fact that many are indeed valid makes this harder.
 * On a similar note, many of the redirects created by this user have seen no use and should probably also be deleted. Toadspike (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am giving up soon because of the sheer number of these articles. If someone else would like to comb through to find articles that use <= 2 sources, that would be much appreciated. I do not mean to suggest that all of the user's page creations should be deleted; the fact that many are indeed valid makes this harder.
 * On a similar note, many of the redirects created by this user have seen no use and should probably also be deleted. Toadspike (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Surely the nominator gives reasons for redirecting Sykai to Galata rather than for deletion? I haven't looked at the others yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This book seems to confirm that Sykai should be redirected. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for now. There are multiple concerns given here: 1. notability under the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for geographic features; 2. whether the nominated places are merely alternative names for other places, for which they should be redirects; and 3. whether all of the geographic stubs created by a particular user should be deleted because he was warned about creating them, and then chose to retire.  Let's consider each of these in turn.
 * 1. With respect to notability, the geographic notability guideline says, at the very outset, "[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." That alone seems all but dispositive as to notability.  Cities and towns from classical antiquity are presumptively notable, if their existence is attested in reputable sources, such as the Barrington Atlas, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, or any of various other good sources.  The fact that the name of one of these places is known from epigraphy rather than ancient writers doesn't make it non-notable.  If a place meets the notability criteria for geographic features, then the general notability guideline is also presumptively satisfied.
 * 2. The first-nominated article says that the place was located near Galata, and the fact that Waterfronts Revisited briefly says that Galata was "originally called Sykai" and then dismisses it doesn't really address that discrepancy. If a former town or settlement was later subsumed into Galata, that's not the same thing as saying that it had no independent existence, history, or significance of its own.  Generally, if there is more reliable, verifiable, and useful information about a subject than can be conveniently merged into a related topic, or the subject has obvious potential for expansion beyond the prudent limits of such a merger, then the article should continue to exist, even as a stub.  What is presently said under "Sykai" can probably be adequately covered under "Galata", although the fact that it was inhabited as part of Thrace rather than merely being incorporated into Constantinople by the early fifth century is not mentioned there, and unless shown to be unreliable or unverifiable that would need to be added under "Galata".  Slight variations in orthography probably aren't vital to include, i.e. Justinianopolis/Ioustinianoupolis/Iustinianopolis/Youstinianoupoulous, as long as the most familiar/likely forms to be encountered are found, and others redirect to the proper section of the right article.
 * Nonetheless, there is potential for expansion under Sykai (or perhaps Sycae, as most historical sources consulted by English-language speakers would be expected to search under the Latin form of the name). Whether it's significant would have to be based on what various sources have to say about the place—has anybody checked to see whether the article contains everything that likely sources have to say about the place besides what's found under "Galata", as WP:BEFORE urges?  The nomination doesn't say, and if all that we know is that the existing stub doesn't provide more information, then I don't think that the nomination meets the criteria for deletion.  Stubs should be redirected or deleted because they don't have significant potential for improvement or expansion, not because they're currently stubs that haven't been improved or expanded.
 * 3. As noted by the nominator, the outcome of this discussion probably shouldn't hinge on the fact that the creator was warned about creating geographic stubs in general. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with creating geographic stubs, as long as they are verifiable and meet the guidelines for notability with regard to geographic features.  As I mentioned above, cities and towns from classical antiquity are presumptively notable; the notability guideline pretty clearly says so.  If a particular editor exceeded the acceptable limits of this guideline in other cases, that shouldn't determine the outcome of the present nomination; each of the above-nominated articles and any related articles should only be redirected or deleted if they individually fail to meet the notability guidelines, or can be thoroughly covered in other appropriate articles.  Just a quick perusal suggests that all of them are notable.
 * Being located near or even within a modern settlement is not the same thing as being identical with that place; we have lots of articles about Greek and Roman towns that have since become incorporated into modern places, but about which there is more history or archaeology to discuss than can be conveniently and thoroughly included in the articles about the modern sites. Sykai may indeed be fully mergeable with Galata—but it hasn't been yet, because the article contains important facts that aren't in "Galata"—and the nomination doesn't say whether anyone checked to see what additional information about the place might be readily obtainable, but perhaps too much to include under "Galata".
 * There is no indication whatever that this has been done with any of the other places nominated, or that any of them are identical with and can be conveniently merged into the places that they are nearest to today. Until that has been done, the only grounds for redirecting or deleting any of them are: 1) that they're stubs about formerly-populated places, which is clearly not a reason for either redirection or deletion; and 2) that they were created by a user who was allegedly overzealous in creating geographic stubs.  It's neither necessary nor desirable to re-argue that case here; only to note that unless they're patent hoaxes that simply fail verifiability—which doesn't appear to be the case—they should be judged on an individual basis, not en masse; judged solely on their current content, they all have the appearance of valid geographic stubs.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- These are articles about former populated places, which have as much right to exist (if there is something known about them) as a current place.  If the place has been replaced by another - a direct successor with a different name - it would be appropriate to merge the articles, leaving a redirect, but plain deletion should be out of the question.  W. Smith, Classical dictionary and his various other works on classical antiquity are reliable sources, though now rather old ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Apoligies for the mess, I seem not have explained my thoughts well at all. A batch deletion may not have been the best solution for this. I will try to go through each of the articles and explain my thoughts here.
 * Sykai: This location may be notable, but the article includes no information beyond what is mentioned in Galata, and as such should be redirected.
 * Camisene: This article cites only one source, and a primary source at that (Geographica), which would make it non-notable or violate WP:RS. It does, however, "incorporate text" from the "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography", but that isn't very clear. Because the sourcing is unclear and far from adequate, this should be merged with Pontus or deleted.
 * Tendeba, Tynada, Etsyena, Appolena, and Lalandos are suitable for a batch deletion, as they all follow the pattern of containing almost no information beyond a name, time period, and possible modern locations, and cite only atlases. These should probably best be merged into their regional articles. In order, this means that Tendeba should be merged into Caria (and it is already mentioned there); Tynada should be merged into Pisidia; and Etsyena, Appolena, and Lalandos should be merged into Phrygia.
 * Finally, WP:NGEO. Maps are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability at NGEO. As such, the last five articles, which only cite atlases and primary sources, should probably be deleted. I have checked the Barrington Atlas cited on these pages; the only mention of the towns in question is an entry in a table consisting, in its entirety, of a map grid, time period, name, presumed modern location, and source of information. This is nothing close to the coverage required for notability; it doesn't even say whether these places are actually towns, or some other named location (potentially unpopulated?), listing them simply as "places". The Lund University digital atlas deadlinks, and I cannot find an actual map of that project on their website, so the information is essentially unverifiable. Further, I am not sure if "legal recognition" of any of these towns has been established. This bolsters the case for merging or even outright deleting the last five articles I mentioned, and I urge all past and future voters to consider the limited extent of sourcing for these articles before saying that simply because they may have existed they deserve an article. Toadspike (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It may well be that there's not currently enough information available about some or all of these places to require stand-alone articles, but merely because there's only enough information for a stub doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. If with due diligence no information can be found indicating that they were populated places or otherwise notable, then merger or deletion may be appropriate; but the burden is on the person seeking to delete an article to make reasonable attempts to locate more information before the articles can be deleted; checking one or two specific sources—one of which could not be located on-line, although it does or did at one time exist—does not seem like enough.
 * But I need to address some of the other arguments made here: Sycae was clearly a populated place and notable; not all of the relevant facts had been incorporated into "Galata" when I wrote my previous reply, and unless that is addressed then the articles have yet to be adequately merged. It also isn't clear that a passing mention in Waterfronts Revisited is authoritative as to the identity of Sycae with Galata.  Since the other sources imply that it was only later subsumed into Galata, and previously had an independent existence, there is a discrepancy that must be addressed before merger is appropriate.
 * The caution against relying on "primary sources" in Wikipedia articles has nothing to do with historical or geographical writing from classical antiquity; it is about things such as self-description in biographical articles, or eyewitness accounts of events—and even these can be properly incorporated if identified as such and appropriately placed in context. The fact that a place is described by Strabo neither makes it non-notable or violate WP:RS.  And even these would not be concerns if, as you say, the articles are based in part on other reliable sources such as the DGRG or Barrington Atlas.  If the source of the text isn't readily apparent, that's a reason to reword it to avoid unattributed quotes, and to cite the sources better; it's not a valid reason to delete the articles.
 * Your argument, "[m]aps are explicitly excluded from counting towards notability at NGEO. As such, the last five articles, which only cite atlases and primary sources, should probably be deleted" is a complete non-sequitur. The appearance of a location on a map does not establish notability, but this is because maps don't always provide adequate details.  Maps that do include such information—for instance by indicating whether a place is populated, or what that population is—may go toward establishing notability.  And while an atlas may contain maps, that doesn't mean that it can't establish notability; atlases frequently contain substantial information about places beyond merely indicating their locations.  And it's already been established that "primary sources"—such as Strabo—are not excluded in any way, shape, or form.
 * "Legal recognition" as described in WP:NGEO has nothing to do with ancient cities or archaeological sites, and has no place in this discussion. The fact that "legal recognition" of ancient cities or towns has not been established bolsters nothing.
 * But to return to an earlier point: inadequate sourcing in an article of any length is a valid reason to improve the sourcing of the article in question. It is not a valid reason for deleting it or merging it with another article.  WP:BEFORE makes clear that the onus is on the editor urging deletion to make reasonable attempts to find reliable sources; it is not enough merely to assert that the sources that are currently cited are inadequate.  Checking the sources that are already cited is good, but not enough to satisfy this requirement.  I further note that sources do not have to be available on-line in order to be considered verifiable; the Lund atlas may be offline at the moment, but if it still exists and can be searched somewhere, then it cannot be excluded as evidence of verifiability merely because it is difficult or inconvenient for editors to access it.
 * None of which establishes that none of the nominated articles can be merged or deleted; merely that a number of the reasons given for doing so are invalid, and that as yet there is no indication that reasonable attempts have been made to establish whether any of them could be improved, which is a necessary step prior to deletion or merger. P Aculeius (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recognised settlements so meet WP:GEOLAND. The fact they no longer exist is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment All of these are some of the notorious geostubs created by Carlossuarez, and there are so many that his contribution statistics list doesn't load. Most are and will probably always be just literal dots on a map, which makes them non-notable according to WP:GEOLAND. Solving this through AfD is impossible, however, because there are always going to people who think low-effort database entries are valid encyclopedic articles, and who also will incomprehensibly devote multiple walls of text in defense of them. I think there was talk of mass deleting all such geostubs via administrator action in the creator's ANI thread, but the matter died there it seems. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I support soft-deleting all nominated articles per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NGEO. Avilich (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Avilich, I just wanted to let you know that hundreds of these geo-stubs were deleted in 2021 via PROD. I'm sure there are still a lot of stub articles left but many have already been cleared out with no objections or de-PRODding. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Inclined to keep, and give editors a chance to add to the article. I'm not convinced merging into the article for Galata is the answer, and simply because an editor has created a large amount of stub articles some of which may not be notable, it doesn't mean that some of them aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the city no longer exists is not relevant for WP:GEOLAND. I added a source. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. pburka (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep a historical article meeting WP:GEOLAND. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Its really short. - CafeGurrier66 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2022 (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.