Talk:Gonbad

Subject may not be notable (and other issues)

Quick explanation of the maintenance tags I just added:

• First, obviously the article is almost entirely unsourced. There are also various statements that look like original research (i.e. an editor adding their own impressions or research), although that issue might simply be resolved by proper sourcing.
• Secondly, and maybe more importantly, this doesn't look like a notable topic per WP:NOTABILITY. Two main points to make:
  • Gonbad and kümbet are simply non-English terms meaning "dome" or "tomb"/"mausoleum" in this context. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and these words have their own entries at Wiktionary (kümbet and گنبد). These words might narrowly refer to domed tombs, but if true that's not notable in itself as that's just a linguistic difference. The articles corresponding to this topic are tomb or mausoleum (though you'll notice those pages need development too), or maybe dome. Sub-types of tombs which are distinct to Iran and nearby regions can be discussed either at those main pages or in architecture pages like Islamic architecture, Iranian architecture, Seljuk architecture, etc, as needed. There is no essential difference between tombs called "gonbad"/"kümbet"/"gumbaz" and other tombs. For example, most tombs in the Islamic world consist of domed structures which can be compared to these ones but they do not all go by these names.
  • I cannot find any reliable (scholarly) sources that focus this term as its own distinct topic, which is part of what WP:NOTABILITY requires. The term(s) only appears as part of the names of specific monuments. The Dictionary of Islamic Architecture and the Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, for example, which are the type of sources which would cover a topic like this, do not have entries corresponding to this term; they have entries for "mausoleum" or "tomb" and for relevant regional styles of course.
• As it is, the scope of the article is also clearly not well-defined, which to my mind is a problem arising from non-notability. The page starts out as a defining a Persian word for "dome", then most of the article is about Turkish tombs (kümbet), then a final section talks about one tomb in India which already has its own article. Since there's no clear scope to the article, and since it just seems to be about any tomb that includes the apparent cognate gonbad/kümbet/gumbaz, the page has turned into a smattering of sections about tombs with no other apparent connection to each other and no connection to the title of the page other than a trivial etymological connection.

If there's no clear way to improve this article and address these issues, I recommend it be nominated for deletion. If enough time passes without resolution I can start the nomination myself. You can compare this issue with a previous discussion to delete a page called "Bab (gateway)", for example, as that too was basically just a page about a non-English term for a concept easily covered by its English equivalent(s). (Note: similar issues might be raised with articles such as türbe.) R Prazeres (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@R Prazeres, the article currently appears to be discussing an architectural feature rather than a mere term. After two years, do you still believe there is a problem of notability? Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed the article is largely unsourced. Let me know if you would like to nominate this article for deletion if you still believe the aforementioned problem persists. Aintabli (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Aintabli. The sourcing and WP:DICTIONARY problems mentioned above are still present, yes. I think deletion is the simplest solution, with no effective loss to Wikipedia.

Another option, perhaps more helpful, would be to blank and redirect "Gonbad" to History of Persian domes, a well-sourced article that effectively covers the topic outlined in the lead (Persian domes). "Kümbet", which I think was an article merged here a while ago and now takes up the rest of the article, could also be redirected to Seljuk architecture, where Seljuk tombs are already covered, again with proper sources. What do you think? R Prazeres (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Redirecting is a great suggestion. I'm not sure if kümbet should redirect to Seljuk architecture, because this article doesn't have any specific sections for domes, and the Seljuk architecture is not unrelated to the "Persian architecture". "Kümbet" is also just the Turkish name, not necessarily Seljuk. Aintabli (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh nevermind for Kümbet, I didn't realize it was converted to a disambiguation page. It should just remain that way and the entry about tombs there can be updated accordingly.

At this point, would you object if I simply bold-redirect this article to History of Persian domes? R Prazeres (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I would not at this point. Go ahead and redirect. Thanks. Aintabli (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)