Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dərə Şahbuz (archeological site)

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. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dərə Şahbuz (archeological site)

[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)

Unable to find any references on google to this location. It was also created by a blocked user whom was blocked for copyright violations. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the lack of sources is a result of language bias more than anything else, so ordinarily I'd want to argue in support, but: this already exists (in near-identical stub form, but with better map) on the Azerbaijani wikipedia; and I can't get a single solid hit in any language out of my institutional library either, just one dud that appears to be about the present settlement of Shahbuz. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You wouldn't really expect a minor archaeological site in an isolated exclave of Azerbaijan to be easy to find on Google, would you? But there are two scholarly sources cited in the article and, although I can't read Azerbaijani, I don't see any reason not to take them on good faith. I don't think the creator's block is relevant because there has never been any concerns about the verifiability of his contributions, only copyright problems. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe Fully agree that the creator's block isn't relevant in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all archaeological sites are notable. In this case the article creator appears closely related to the author if the sources - possibly the same person. It may be a case of an archaeologist writing an article for every site he’s ever worked on, or there may be some political agenda. In any case, if the subject is in fact “a minor archaeological site” why is it notable? Who apart from the guy who dug it up has written about it? Mccapra (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of archaeological sites are notable, because by definition, if we know about them, they have been investigated and probably excavated. Excavations especially almost always generate a large amount of high quality coverage (peer reviewed articles, monographs, etc.), because they are big projects involving multiple specialists and there is an ethical duty to publish the results in depth. So my comment that this site is "minor" shouldn't be taken to mean "not notable", just "maybe not of enough interest to non-specialists that people have published a lot of Google-indexed sources about it". – Joe (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:AGF, WP:GRAVEDANCING, and WP:NEXIST. Unless the behaviour the guy was block for was related to faking articles or being negligent in citing articles, I think we should just assume good faith that the citations are real. Deleting this editor's articles just because they engaged in copyvios would be WP:GRAVEDANCING, though it would certainly be wise to see if they were doing it systematically. I can't access these references but so long as they exist per WP:NEXIST that is sufficient. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it sufficient, though? It's only one page of one of the two sources. I've seen things sink as "not WP:SIGCOV" with more than this. Do archaeological sites get special rules that allow them to count as notable on the strength of a single source and a single other passing mention? -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fair amount of hits in GScholar searching for "Dərə Şahbuz", in what I assume is either Armenian or Azerbijani, I can't speak either language. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get zero. Are you searching without quotations? "Dərə" just means "valley", so if you don't put quotes around both words you're going to get a lot of irrelevant stuff. Many of which you can read the titles of even without speaking the language. I see a linguistics paper and an ornithology paper, for example. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2021 (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.