Imbros and Tenedos : It's an article for two close-by islands, both of which have their own articles.  This article synthesizes random groupings to establish notability, which is absurd.  They might have a common history, but that is not enough of a reason to have such an article.  Aintabli ( talk ) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey .  Aintabli ( talk ) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 11:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We have Imbros and Tenedos which likewise mention them together in several places so I'm similarly baffled as to why this is an article.  Reywas92 Talk 22:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The pages are already created so no need to make this one, move it to the specific ones and delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaikha Habiba ( talk • contribs ) 08:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Checkuser note: Blocked as a sockpuppet.  Courcelles ( talk ) 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this redundant article as per the above arguments.  Liamyangll ( talk to me! ) 23:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , although a wp:MERGE discussion could be recommended.   As the article notes "They are or have been treated or considered together for various purposes at different times" which are then listed.   This should not have been brought to AFD.   It is a merger or split decision, to be considered by editors/readers of the articles.   Those persons, who are more informed than AFD participants about this area, should be allowed to do so on a slower timeline than the usually one-week period of an AFD, as they are not all likely to be active and noticing the AFD going on, much less able to bring on board the other more informed parties.   They should not be bound by a random AFD decision which will simply interfere with their sensible editing and decision-making.  I think a lot of AFD nominators (not saying that it is the case here) simply don't get that AFDs are often/usually hurtful of normal editing processes and editors.   And/or they simply do not care, or they do care but enjoy the hurting.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 20:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A report having been written about them both does not make them a single notable entity, nor receiving the same treatment in a treaty, nor that a church groups them in their organization.  Ecumenical_Patriarchate_of_Constantinople#Archdioceses_and_Archbishops shows that many of the Metropolises group nearby islands and municipalities, but that doesn't mean each of these pairings or groupings need an article!  Surely there are countless reports out there that might talk about a grouping of, say, Washington and Oregon, or Bali and Lombok, or Sardinia and Corsica, but a few instances of being treated together is no basis for an article.  This is not a "thematic set" or a "conjunction article", it's pointless and duplicative and opens the door to virtually any arbitrary pairing.  Reywas92 Talk 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - previous AFD and conjunction articles as a type :  Also, reading the first AFD about this, the reasons for "Keep" at least as a short stub, as given by numerous editors whom I respect, make sense.   Including User:bd2412 's advice to "Keep as a brief description of the history of these two islands having been grouped together, but not as a disambiguation page, per User:JHunterJ ".  As I think about it more, it just seems a bit mind-numbing, like "stupid" (not saying or meaning that the nominator and supporting editors are stupid, but good people in groups often do come to bad decisions), to eradicate the topic of the conjunction.  What, should each of the two articles include a paragraph or two about the conjunction, which is a thing?  It would just be weird to require that in lieu of having one short article covering the history/usage of the conjunction.  This is really an editing matter, shouldn't be at AFD at all;  editors there should determine the best arrangement of information between three short articles or just one combined article, perhaps.  I don't think the deletion nominator or deletion voters have really grappled with the writing problem:  they just see one part of a three-part solution and "don't get" why it is the way it is; they do not actually have a complete proposal for a two-part solution (if they really tried drafting out those two articles, they would realize it is better to have a third short one too, avoiding repetition and otherwise helping out). --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 20:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI a similar situation came up, is under current discussion at wt:NRHP#Ohio Historical Center and Ohio Village .  That discussion references a previous conjunction article, Boston Common and Public Garden .  In both cases, where the conjunction is a thing because it was itself listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the preferred treatment is to have three articles. Another conjunction example at AFD that I recall (but i just looked for and can't find easily) is a pair of hills in Germany, again where three articles were kept. There are lots and lots of conjunctions like Sonny & Cher where the combo and each of the two components all clearly meet wp:GNG .  But it is not well understood, I guess, and perhaps there should be an essay or guideline or policy statement addressing this, that technically as an editorial matter we need to have conjunctions sometimes when the two components are clearly individually notable and the combo, while not clearly individually notable, is a thing too, and it is just better writing-wise, editorial-wise, to have a short stub for the combo that is somewhat more than a disambiguation page and somewhat less than what we otherwise usually expect for a standalone article. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 20:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another type of conjunction example, with more than two linked items, are architect articles which mainly consist of a list of notable buildings that are linked by having been designed by one firm, as the article Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson once was.  An AFD discussion about that, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson , clarified that the article at the time functioned like a conjunction.  The conjunction could be referenced efficiently from each of 12 separate articles about individual buildings, avoiding the need to have 12 copies of the same collection of information.  Although at the time the conjunction was not to several editors' taste, being less than what they perceived would be normal for a standalone architect article.  The thing is, it shouldn't have been considered as merely a standalone, it really was a conjunction article that was part and parcel of a thematic set of related articles . --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a baffling comparison.  This firm is a single company.  It was not kept because it was a thematic set of articles, but because it was a notable firm that designed many notable buildings, even if you created it as list of them.  A "conjunction" of merely the buildings would not be notable.  Reywas92 Talk 15:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per reasons provided above by Doncram Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Imbros and Tenedos are not related in a similar way as a pop duo or a firm, so these examples are not really congruent.  Boston Common and Public Garden , despite similarly being a set of places, were institutionally one, which that article appears to specifically address, differently from these islands.  We cannot still ignore that this page is very lacking and was forgotten for a long time.  It is far from providing us with information unique to the title itself.  In this case, I suggest a WP:TNT so that anyone willing to recreate can rethink about the article's scope without WP:SYNTHesizing random groupings and bring good sources.  Aintabli ( talk ) 08:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine, there's a call to use wp:TNT, which is an acknowledgement of validity of the topic.   Please see wp:TNTTNT (to which I contributed) for explanation of the ways that TNT is _always wrong_.   TNT is attractive to deletionists for some reason, but is revealing, instead.   IMO the only reasonable conclusion of an AFD when wp:TNT is invoked is to "Keep".  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 10:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not affirming any validity. The TNT I suggested is given your approach. I still believe this page should not be. Aintabli ( talk ) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , the islands are separately notable and have their own articles. They are not notable as a pair. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 13:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the content is so tiny it can easily be duplicated between the articles for each island Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Doncram. -- Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 16:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete - there is precisely zero information in the article at this time that is not already rendered in much more depth at both Tenedos and Imbros .  Its existence can serve only as a stumbling block to the reader, who, instead of finding those B(-ish) class articles, will see this bizarre collection of trivia.  signed, Rosguill talk 02:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 08:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Rosguill.  It's kind of frustrating because the topic of the two islands has some neat history but it's not really enough for it's own article in it's current state.  An article talking about the arbitration of the islands to Turkey that does a real deep dive would be really interesting and notable but that is not the case here.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 4 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete