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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Fences&Windows 01:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abay, Almaty

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Village which does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. I propose that information about this village and all other small settlements nominated should be placed in a table in the article Almaty Province. Claritas (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in terms of content:

and all other stub articles on villages in Almaty Province#Settlements.

Speedy keep All places are inhabited settlements with several hundred people living in them, especially around Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan and most populated area. These should be expanded, not deleted. Abay, Almaty for instance is no diferent in size to a village in england like Ambrosden. Gradually sources in Russian.Kazakh will become available. This person is proposing to delete articles like Taldykorgan (Pop. 118,000) and Ushtobe (Pop 23,000) too and the rest of the district capitals. Hell these are major towns and the rest appear to be adequately sized small towns/villages according to google map satellite views of them, all are notable in my view.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that expansion is impossible as there aren't any sources available. It's a bit WP:CRYSTAL to suggest that we should keep the articles simply because there will be articles on them in the future. The current articles provide the reader with no more information than a table on Almaty Province could. Furthermore, if there are no non-trivial mentions in sources, these articles seriously don't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Claritas (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you've honestly looked for sources in Russian and Kazakh have you? I'll ask my good friend Ezhiki tomorrow. I'd bet there is mention of several of the settlements you are proposing in Soviet censuses and papers. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mention of a town in a census would not be "significant coverage". I've searched some of the village names through [1] and didn't find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Claritas (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not realise that the district capitals were included in the "settlement" listing, because I based it on the template. I've edited the nomination to reflect that. Claritas (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By your criteria we should delete thousands of articles about towns in the developing world just because our friend google doesn't have anything on them except a map. These places are verifiable. Look at Abay on a map. I agree that these stubs need expanding and need blessing with sources, but Kazakhstan is not exactly number 1 on the web for information... If we were to strictly go by sources we would have few articles about places in Africa, Asia and Latin America.... Understand that in countries such as Kazakhstan lack of sources is not always an indicator of lack of notability. Trust me on this. Taldykorgan for instance in Almaty Province has a population of 118,000 and I couldn't find much at all to expand it into a full article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is called WP:NOTABILITY and it applies to all articles. It doesn't matter whether the information is verifiable, it matters whether these settlements are notable. Unless someone can provide sources indicating notability, every single one of these minor settlement stubs should be deleted. And from my point of view, that would be good for Wikipedia. We need quality, not quantity. Claritas (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of content is generally confused by article deletionists such as yourself as lacking NOTABILITY. Taldykorgan for instance in Almaty Province has a population of 118,000 and I couldn't find much at all to expand it into a full article. No solid sources in english on the web, see this. Nothing but computer generated sites and useless databases/blogs, none of these sources indicate notablility. Do we delete that article too based on your criteria? Is it likely that actually these places are notable and are certainly notable to the people who live in them everyday but actually we are hampered by uneven coverage on the Internet in terms of information? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources concerning Taldykorgan for notability to be demonstrated. The same is not true of Abay, Almaty or any of the other minor settlements in the template. From my point of view, notability is conferred by significant coverage in reliable sources, not simply a suspicion that it is inherently notable due to the amount of inhabitants. Claritas (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is little evidence online to indicate much about the notability of Taldykorgan. But I ask the average wikipedian here. Would they consider a city with 118,000 people notable? Would they consider small towns with several thousand worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Because you can be certain that many of these settlements you;ve nominated, being in Kazakhstan's most populated province have significant numbers of people living in them. Why is a stub on a small town with several thousand in Kazakhstan any less notable than a tiny village in the UK or US? DO you genuinely think that because the tiny village in the UK has a lot of sources written about it that it is more notable than Taldykorgan. See Ambrosden. Village in England I wrote a few weeks back and promoted to GA. Judging by content and web sources this village is obviously more notable than Taldykorgan which has nothing but databases and computer generated sites on the Internet. I strongly disagree, I know Taldykorgan is ten times as anotable a settlement but the sources reflect the opposite. You are failing to take into account one crucial factor in determining notability in the developing world, that access to sources is generally a very poor judge of the scale and notability of the subject. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK heres an example.. Lets use Ushtobe as an example, a settlement with hundreds upion hundreds of houses and 23 964 in 2009 according to Russian wikipedia (equally unsourced and sparse an article). This is a substantial town in Almaty Province yet our friend google strongly says this is not notable. Now lets try Angus Cobblestone Farmhouse and Barn Complex. Oh and suddenly it is covered in reliable sources, so obviously this farmhouse and barn in New York state is more notable than Ushtobe. OK lets go with Abay, Almaty. Viewing the satellite map of the settlement we see hundreds of houses. It is possible that is might be as notable, more notable than Angus Cobblestone Farmhouse and Barn Complex, a mere barn? I think I've made my point, perhaps others will see what I mean. I agree with that a good encyclopedia needs solid sources and quality content but this is not always possible to have an even number of sources on the Internet. Lets try another at randomlets try Akbulak, Kazakhstan. Lets view on a google map. Its a western suburb of Almaty, and has amajor Russian Orthodox Church in it. Such a church would generally be notable enough in any English town to have its own article, let alone an article on the suburb. But because there is little online about it they should be dismissed? OK lets google searchAkbulak Micro District its other name, see here. Some mention of it on Kazakhstan based sites but little on it despite it being a section of the city. This site says something about the "microdistrict" in southwest of Almaty as being areas of business/residential growth from the 1960, and this says something about the streets and development in Akbulak. Seemingly notable but what do you know, little online about them... Did you even bother to check every single one for sources in Russian and Kazakh that you blindly nominated before trying to put them into the bin? It would seem they could all be expanded even despite the lack of sources on the web.... This nomination is a waste of time. The time I've spent arguing the case that these places are adequate settlements I could have tried to expand those which do have at least some sources available. Wikipedia would be better off trying to have these articles expanded rather than deleted. Verifiable, inhabited places are generally within our guidlines are they not? I genuinely hope these places develop in terms of web content... As it stands they can be expanded, look at Akbulak, Kazakhstan.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's an actual location that exists. Str8cash (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Wikipedia:Notability (geography) pretty well spells it out-- a confirmed populated place is kept. The Almaty Province has 1.6 million people, and close to 800 villages. While we do have to be on guard on the policy being abused (such as someone trying to sell their neighborhood as its own village), I think it's a good policy, after having initially disliked it. I'll give the Joe Friday answer, until the rules are changed, that's the way it is. Since this appears to be a nomination out of principle, rather than an assertion that each article has been individually examined and found not to meet the guideline, I'll say keep all. I'm perfectly willing to entertain a motion to delete any individual entry that isn't a hick town. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are two practical problems with keeping these articles. The first is that it slows down the assessment process, because each one has to be individually assessed for the project. The second is that there is currently very little possibility of expansion. I am ignoring all rules in suggesting these pages for deletion, but I feel there is seriously another side to the argument. Claritas (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck in trying to delete them. Category:Cities, towns and villages in Kyrgyzstan articles are even shorter perhaps, it wasn't me who created them either. I think you'll find there is a wide consensus that populated places are regarded as notable. You certainly have apoint though that they need expanding into something worthwhile and that very few of them in their present state are up to a decent standard. Unfortunately we suffer from a wide number of sources and editors working on such countries. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Places do not need to have extensive coverage, only their existence must be verifiable. "[M]ention of a town in a census" is sufficient for this. Technical concerns (WP-assessment) should not be a reason to delete content. It doesn't take long, btw. I'll just start to post the WikiProject banners. --Pgallert (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course when expanding articles on villages it leads to connection to other articles and further growth like Kapchagay Reservoir which I started this morning....I'm pretty certain they are all encyclopedic... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per precedent. Populated places are regarded as notable, generally. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - consensus clearly shows that populated places are considered inherently notable, whether or not they meet WP:NOTABILITY. Claritas (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.