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 delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espu Kola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per invalid deletion rationale, populated places do not fall under GNG. Unless you can elaborate on your reasoning? Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There were censuses in Iran in 2011 and 2016 which should give us more up-to-date info rather than the cited 2006 one. However, I couldn't find any information in their census data site about this specific settlement, possibly I didn't find the correct sheet though. --Gilc (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User talk:JJPMaster regarding concerns that were not addressed at the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_Master (she/they) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think either the nomination nor the keep !votes engaged with the essential issue here, which is that this place quite possibly does not exist as an actual community. The reason being that Iran counts its census at rural locations called Abadi. These are simply census-taking locations, and need not correspond to actual villages/towns (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't), and are essentially the Iranian version of census tracts (something explicitly excluded by WP:GEOLAND). Carlossuarez46 went through the 2006 Iranian census making these articles at an incredible fast rate, without bothering to check whether these places actually existed as anything more than a census-taking location. Many of them were obviously wells, pumps, farms, shops, bridges etc. and have been deleted. For example, on the day he created this article, he created at least 445 other articles also about Iranian "villages" (I say "at least" because at least 20,000 of the articles they created have since been deleted and the deleted articles won't show up in this search). Especially since this place doesn't appear to have been included in later censuses (like Gilc I can't find it), it's very likely that it wasn't a real village or community of any sort. =

I've tried a bunch of searches, using the name in the article, the title in Farsi, and the alternative romanisation of "Esbu Kola", both generally on google, and also in GeoNames and OpenStreetMap, and whilst I do find sourcing for Esbu Kola, Savadkuh, Esbu Kola, Babol and Esbu Kola, Sari, I cannot find anything confirming the existence of this place.

TL;DR - Without any actual location it is impossible to confirm the existence or otherwise of this place as an actual populated community (rather than just a bridge/shop/factory/farm/whatever where the population was counted) and so it should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation with better sourcing, etc. The problems FOARP points out are well-known (or should be, to frequenters of geographical AfDs). Disappearing from subsequent census records makes me think that the single occurrence in the 2006 census is insufficient to substantiate this as a real populated place. Choess (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, pulling teeth my previous opinion following FOARP's elaboration. I stand by speedy keep being the correct response to the initial statement, "fails WP:GNG", which was not usable as a conversation starter, but I'm on board with the Iran geostub situation being problematic. Geschichte (talk) 00:50, 3 December 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.