Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultansuyu Dam

Sultansuyu Dam

Sultansuyu Dam (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)

This page is very small, and it appears that, due to lack of information available, or lack of sources, this page is almost obsolete. If this page explained (with sources) the reason why this dam was built, like many other dam-related articles, it would be eligible to be kept, but it doesn't, so i suggest deleting this article due to lack of concrete sources and information, as well as the page being 2 sentences long. This page is not helpful and should be deleted. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Lack of significant coverages. Namita Tudu (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: I have added some content and 6 reliable sources being a "small" article is not a valid reason for deletion Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The nomination does not qualify for speedy keep per WP:CSK. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  number 3 applies "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." Theroadislong (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  The nomination is irrelevant once a valid Delete !vote has been entered. But by all means, you're welcome to leave your "Speedy" vote in place and have it discarded by the closing admin. Owen× ☎ 13:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I built on Theroadislong's work to expand the article and fill out the infobox. In addition to the news coverage and journal article they found and added, I found and added book references: several mentions of the earthquake damage and one extended treatment (the 2024 Tunnelling conference paper). Nominator's argument appears to rest on the state of the article as they found it, without WP:BEFORE; sources indicate notability (without my even needing to try a search in Turkish). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: the nomination raises issues of length and missing detail, not notability. These are matters for improvement rather than deletion per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:ATD. Per WP:HEY, the article has since been expanded and is now well sourced. Independent Springer academic studies analyse the dam's damage and performance during the February 2023 earthquakes, establishing coverage beyond mere existence (, ). HerBauhaus · talk 14:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't mention it so that I wouldn't potentially violate WP:NOTNOTABLE. Theeverywhereperson talk here 16:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I should note that my vote is Delete Theeverywhereperson talk here 15:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

But since the article has been improved, we will need to close this discussion as Keep, and all of you have worked quite well. Thank you, and I hope an admin can come and potentially close as keep, as per WP:NACD, I am not allowed to close this discussion, but a passing admin or uninvolved non-admin can close as keep. Theeverywhereperson talk here 16:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

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.