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. lifebaka++ 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Dam

[edit]

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

This dam and the 29 below are all planned, non-existent dams in Iran. They are not under construction or complete. The articles were created in April 2010 with several being PROD'd citing WP:CRYSTALBALL and were subsequently de-PROD'd by their creator. The creator's reasoning is cited here among other places. Part of the problem is, eight months later, the articles remain tagged-stubs. Aside from failing under CRYSTALBALL, these planned dams lack the notability for stand-alones and can, if not already, be sufficiently covered in List of power stations in Iran. Whether these dams will be built isn't a sure thing. Articles on dams, with the exception of a few very controversial, usually aren't started until construction begins; similar to when one would create an article for a music album. Next to each dam article, I placed a source to the developer's website.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Dam source: Phase 1 study

Can they possibly be merged? I don't see any sufficiency to keep them individually, but perhaps together they could warrant an article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are already included in List of power stations in Iran but can also be listed in List of reservoirs and dams in Iran under a "Proposed dams" section as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia Guidelines:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims" AND "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources. Put the ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." Is it only me who sees that there is something terribly wrong with putting deletion tag on the articles according to the Wikipedia guidelines or is it really the case? All articles have proper official references and since dams are large projects with far reaching effects, these separate articles have been created to allow for expansion. There are many articles on wikipedia which took more than 8 months for their expansion. So this time line is basically not a reason for deletion. These articles can not be merged with the list of powerplants article since that is a list type article and when I created, it was a list. It has been cluttered now, which I am thinking to clean up in order for it to remain a list class article. Anyways Iran is one of biggest dam building nations on planet earth, to the extent of damaging their local ecology. May be the person who has put the deletion tag should instead put his/her energy to expand the articles instead of obliterating them. Deletion is easy, creation is not. --Irooniqermez (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles have been tagged with ((notability)) since April 2010 but that isn't the main reason they should be deleted, rather WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTABILITY. Each article does have a reference, albeit they just go to the IWPCO main page instead of directly to the project. We know they are planned but we don't know if they will be constructed or when they will be constructed. Not every dam goes as planned because of funding, opposition, etc. Until then, they are non-existent planned dams. Iran is a big dam builder in the world and if the dams are collectively controversial, they all can be placed in List of power stations in Iran or List of dams in Iran with a relative blurb. Every dam also has some sort of impact on the environment. List of power stations in Iran is still list-class and already contains the information each stub contains. Once construction begins on a specific dam or it is specifically the topic of "sufficiently wide interest" then stand-alone articles can be created. Right now, we just have 30 potential perma-stubs on "unverifiable speculation" regarding whether they will be constructed in the near future or future. Good enough for inclusion in a list but not a stand-alone article. Some context: in the vast majority of cases, if a notable music artist stated they were planning a new album, would an article be made on it on that point?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music albums are a bit different from dams, do you not agree? You still have not answered why you have tagged deletion under notability and crystalball, despite the rules clearly say that deletion is only to be considered if the articles are not referenced. Many dams are on wikipedia which have never been built and there is no intentions to build them. As for these dams work on some of them in these 8 months might have started. Have you checked to prove the contrary? I guess not. Tagging for deletion seems to be easier than searching for references. You just want to delete them by hook or crook. As I said, you might get away destroying the articles. But you can not destroy the knowledge generally. Relative blurbs do not have any place in a respected encyclopedia. Only referenced data has. Sufficiently wide interest? And let me guess, you are the one who is deciding that, right? --Irooniqermez (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to get the articles deleted "hook or crook". I also agree albums are different then dams, I was just trying to put the notability in context. We know these dams are planned and I commented on the referencing above as well. There are articles on proposed dams on Wikipedia, and some probably aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. A good example of a proposed dam that is notable enough for a stand-alone article is the Belo Monte Dam. Notice the international attention or "sufficiently wide interest" that specific dam has received from sources, even those independent of the subject. Those references and notable attention are essentially "the one who is deciding", not me. I couldn't find this referencing on the proposed dams above. I am not trying to "destroy the knowledge" and didn't say it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I just believe the articles shouldn't be stand-alones. I also gave suggestions for incorporating the same information within the stubs into a list. If it is more then a blurb, then whatever. I sense an undertone in your language that I am pro-Iranian dam or something of that sort. I hope that is not the case and if so, I will refrain from this discussion here at AfD.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of prejudice. I can also reciprocate and accuse you of Anti-Iranian sentiment. But I will not. I just expanded and updated your lead deletion article as an example of how you have not done anything to improve the articles instead of proposing to delete them. As per above mentioned rules, you are on the side of err. Furthermore, I am not going to be held hostage to this irrational situation. I created a list of power plants in Iran for Wikipedia investing my PRECIOUS time since there were none in English Wikipedia. Translating is not an easy job, and to my folly I had assumed English Wikipedia users would in the interest of knowledge appreciate it. But that was a foolish decision on my part and since they are now open source work, I can not delete them, but if I could go back in time, I would have never created them. Arrogance I do not like. You people want to delete it, instead of improving it. Then go ahead and do it. Why you are bothering me? If you can not contribute and construct then there are only two things left to do on Wikipedia, ie deletion and destruction. As for this deletion list, I will not contribute anymore. I am not responsible for all the articles on Wikipedia. The whole idea of Wikipedia is based on community improvement of articles. The responsible member of this community where ever and whenever sees a deficiency in an article does her/his best to improve it. Holding hostage the initiator of the article by putting deletion tags is childish and immature. As for me, this is the end of conversation and I am not concerned with this matter anymore. Certainly, these deletion tags have not been put to improve the quality of articles or Wikipedia as a whole as clearly demonstrated by my expansion of above mentioned article. I hope you understand my extreme frustration with your actions.--Irooniqermez (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor creates an article, it is their job as the creator initially to establish notability and reference it properly. Other editors can help in this effort and often do here especially with new editors. Did I not put a direct reference next to each article above? It is difficult if hardly anything is in English or the project is bilateral and has several names. Creating 30 "assembly line" stubs on proposed dams and placing the same general reference to the developer's home page for each isn't a good way to denote an article's notability. If I did the same, I would not be surprised if someone nominated them for deletion. I try and improve dam articles all the time, usually when they are in the news, under construction or I find interest, etc. I also do not speak or read Persian as with the Azad Dam references. Most editors on the English Wikipedia don't. Google translate didn't even do a good job with the Azad Dam references, it translated it as the "Water dam". The way I had to connect the two was with the MW capacity and location. The Azad Dam was also more than likely under construction when the article was created which wasn't researched or mentioned at the time. I am sure your translations are helpful, albeit those 30 stubs didn't require Persian translation. I apologize for any seemingly harsh language but I feel you are taking too much offense to this. I also think we are all using our precious time here and it is universally appreciated.

After some understandle confusion here with the Aras Watershed Dam and Persian references added to the Azad Dam, idicating it is under construction, I no longer support the deletion of those two.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all. Short unsourced stubs without indication of notability. The link to IWPCO general website [[1]], which says nothing about concrete projects, is not sufficient and does not account as a reference. To establish notability reliable sources with precise references are needed. During eight months there has been no attempts to fix these problems, so deletion seems to be justified. Beagel (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Azad Dam which has significantly improved. Beagel (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Aras Watershed Dam now a redirect.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per NortyNort and Beagel. Johnfos (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Azad Dam and redirect all to List of power stations in Iran.Farhikht (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of power stations in Iran as possible search terms. Or merge into a new List of proposed dams in Iran or List of proposed power stations in Iran. -Atmoz (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (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.