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. The only arguments for deletion (one from the OP and one vote) are based on the article being unsourced. That is no longer the case. While there may be a valid argument for redirecting or merging this, that can be had on the article talk page. For now I am not seeing a compelling argument for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aryk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article doesn't cite any sources, has been abandoned for a long time and isn't really needed ReeceTheHawk (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A perfectly valid stub. Sources for expansion can be found in the other language versions of this page, and we have no deadline. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aqueduct (water supply). I was able to find some sources - e.g. [1] [2] - but all they basically say is that these are small to medium sized aqueducts or irrigation ditches/canals in central Asia - so basically this is an alternative name for aqueduct. Other wikis are similarly stubby with the exception of ru.wiki (which names 3 sources) that covers irrigation in central Asia a bit more than here (but still relatively short). Aryk being a local name of the same global thing, having a separate stubby article doesn't make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but I am trying to find the right target. Both irrigation and surface irrigation are currently too general. Target currently suggested is not ideal: its ancient section deals with the subject by country, not by method. We could do with a general Ancient irrigation systems article providing an overview of this; qanat; levada and a few more. This is a list in Aqueduct, but that is a only dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Acequia, an article about this same concept, using the name derived from Spanish. Such irrigation features are common around the world, and have different names in different languages, but the Turkish variety described in this article appears no different than the concept described at acequia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it's obvious that these aren't quite coterminous with aqueduct. ru:Арык describes them as somewhere between aqueducts, irrigation channels, and a drainage ditch, and also mentions that they have independent history going back 3000 years. Its sources include two notable encyclopaedias (ESBE and UzSE) in which aryks have a separate entry (as does ruwiki, see ru:Акведук). I therefore don't think aqueduct is a good merge target at all. And while I do see the point in reducing the profusion of articles on this topic, we also have acequia, qanat, levada, leat, ditch, rill, flume, rhyne, nullah, and Kunstgraben—all covering similar technologies in different cultures—so I can't see why aryk should be singled out for merging, or why acequia, which exclusively covers Spanish and North American examples, would be a good redirect target. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You might be thinking of Roman aqueduct when imagining Aqueduct (water supply) - however an aqueduct is any man made structure, just about, that conveys water - including channels and ditches.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I think my point about there being many distinct, culturally-specific technologies under the umbrella of "aqueducts", and it not necessarily being a good idea to merge them all, stands. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from what I saw in the sources, that Aryk covers a whole range of small to medium sized aqueduct types - I'm not sure these have a cultural commonality (separate from other regions) other than being the regional term.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Aqueduct (water supply), which has a section on ancient aqueducts as Peterkingiron describes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid stub article.Egaoblai (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — There are no sources in the article. I am not concerned about notability or anything but that this may actually be false information. There are not enough reliable sources to determine that the word "aryk" is indeed an English word that describes some sort of aqueduct. This leads me to believe that it is simply a transliteration of the word from Russian or some other language. Cannot be an article if there are not enough articles to prove that it is actually a thing! NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolaiho: It is a transliteration of a word in Russian and numerous Turkic languages. Why would that be a problem? I have mentioned several sources above, and deletion discussions should be based on the existence of sources not the current state of citation, but for clarity I have just added them to article. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, a transliterated word should not have an article unless it is an accepted word in the English language or is a very well known word, ie. it has a definition in an English dictionary or is very popular (such as Bonjour). The citations don't ascertain the fact that it is an English word. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolaiho: That's not true. We are a global encyclopaedia that happens to be written in the English language, not an encyclopaedia exclusively of the English language. Articles can be based on sources in any language. – Joe (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe no thats not the point. Wikipedia is not going to have the translation of every word in all the languages, even if that word has a million sources in that language. For example, why doesn't Wikipedia have the Igbo word for the word Aqueduct? Because it doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. And there are no sources showing that this word is notable in English. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is not a dictionary. But that has nothing to do with language and this article is not a dictionary definition nor a translation of aqueduct. There are sources (in Russian and Uzbek) that show that the concept is notable. It doesn't have to be notable in English. – Joe (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- a valid stub, with sufficient sources to sustain it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources do not have to be inline and in English. Improvement, not deletion, is the key here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 22 November 2017 (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.