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 procedural keep‎. There have been too many values, so using XFDclosure is not feasible for this one. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 17:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandogo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Set of new geographic pages of villages of Burkina Faso created by User:Hisirmynameismahbeer. All of them seem to be added using copy-paste of a template and some very disputable sources. In this example, a completely unrelated Britannica entry is used as source. I started draftifying some articles and fixing the ones for which information can be found, but this seems a clear case of WP:TNT. Some of these places exist and are found in the 2006 census data (found here) but they are definitely not "towns", they are often located in a different district than the one in the infobox, and sometimes they are only districts of a city (which would not fulfill WP:NGEO). Broc (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Broc (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons added above:

Delete all per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia has had presistent problems with dubious geographical oneliners in the past, from California to name one example. You can take the time a user spent on making a particular set of oneliners, and multiply that time by hundreds or a thousand to reach the number of the hours it took to clean it all up. It is imperative to take a hard stance against mass-created geostubs with questionable verifiability. Geschichte (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL per WP:BURDEN. Fails WP:GEOLAND. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see at least two that are worth keeping - Katabtenga (based on sources in the article) and Dassouri (based on sources in the French article.) Habaza also has text but I can't verify it. I spot checked some of the other settlements and can verify some but not others - Louksi clearly exists, for instance, but Nemnin is a neighbourhood of Ouagadougou which doesn't pass GNG "on its face" in the article - so I'm happy with deleting the rest as a purely procedural concern, without any sort of prejudice on re-creation. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the reason why I opened this AfD and grouped all pages together is that verifying and sourcing all these articles (of which I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping) is a huge effort. As Katabtenga is a well sourced article, I will withdraw the nomination for it. Broc (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs more discussion since there is an opinion that some of the articles in this bundled nomination should be Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Sorry, but these should be nominated separately, bundling together could keep a more legitimate town. However I do agree there is a problem here, but the process of bundling all-together is a bit of a shit-show. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is keeping a bunch of copy pasted articles that nobody will likely ever nominate separately (I most certainly will not) and containing wrong information a better solution for the encyclopedia? Broc (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and nominate separately – It's already becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK here a bit. The nominator stated in a comment above that, "I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping". The nominator also stated that they don't want to do the work to nominate each article separately, but this is not a valid criteria for mass deletion. Yes, there have been problems with geography-related articles on English Wikipedia, but this is also not a valid criteria for deletion of this batch as some sort of default, based on the past history of other articles. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and nominate separately – If you want them deleted, do the work and review them one by one. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very nice burden on WP:NPP who is definitely not overloaded already.^[sarcasm]~~This would create a huge burden on WP:NPP where editors need to review 50+ pages, all containing wrong or dubious information and poor sourcing, merely because some of these places actually exist and therefore fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly the editors arguing for a procedural keep above have forgotten to consider that these are a bunch of copy-pasted recently created pages from the same user (hence the grouping). Broc (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete all If someone wants to create articles, they should do the work and review them one by one rather than mass-produce single-line junk with an unreliable autogenerated source. These could also be redirected to List of cities in Burkina Faso or provincial-level articles like Gayéri (department). Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Most of these articles are badly problematic but are notable. I figured this out after I could confirm Louksi on a map, but couldn't find any sources (apart from one photo of a proposed building from an architect) until I poked over to the French site to see it was Lougsi (see [1]), meaning I verified Katabtenga, Dassouri, and Louksi. This gave me a hint that there are other misspellings in here as well, including Taonsgho [2] for Taonsogo, Goghin ([3]) for Goughin Nord, et cetera. Zékounga is clearly notable from the French article as well now that I look at it, and I've done what I can to rescue it mostly by providing a link to the French page. The only one I support deleting right now is Nemnin, because these are impossible to BEFORE without looking at the French wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandogo also has a link to the French article now and is a clearly notable town of over 6,000 people. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional confirmed notable places under GEOLAND using the french Wiki:

Nakomtenga - Nakamtenga

Tinsouka - Tinsouka

Goupana - Goupana

Dinkabara - Dinkabra

Babakou - Babakou

Cannot confirm Bangma is Bagma though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion or re-nomination of Pamno Ouidi, Nemnin, and Ayaraba, have confirmed these do not pass WP:GEOLAND. But I can confirm Zambanega. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I checked one of them on Google maps and found 100 or so small buildings. Mass nominations often catch well habitated places, and who knows maybe all of these places are habitated. Desertarun (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (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.