Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Kemelet
- 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. Sandstein 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- In Kemelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This nomination includes:
Two one-line, long-time unsourced stubs about two Algerian desert towns. I can't find any mention of them in reliable sources, nor any other kind of coverage. Additionally, neither of them can be found on Google Maps or on the GEOnet Names Server. Lennart97 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Now also including:
Per comments by FOARP below. Lennart97 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete on these and also In Oudad, a stub in the same area sourced (and sourceable) only to GEONet Names Server, which is an unreliable source for whether a place was populated or not and which does not confer (or confirm) legal recognition, and is indeed based often on inaccurate old military maps. All fail WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @FOARP: In Oudad does get a mention in something called Philip's Modern College Atlas for Africa. Lennart97 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- No evidence that this is WP:SIGCOV, which we would need two instances of to pass WP:GNG. At present we have no instances of WP:SIGCOV for any of these. For avoidance of doubt, GEONet listings are not WP:SIGCOV. No evidence of legal recognition that would allow a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass. WP:NGEO also excludes maps (which is what Philip's Modern College Atlas for Africa appears to be) from being used to support the notability of geographic locations. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating. I've added In Oudad to the nomination. Lennart97 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- No evidence that this is WP:SIGCOV, which we would need two instances of to pass WP:GNG. At present we have no instances of WP:SIGCOV for any of these. For avoidance of doubt, GEONet listings are not WP:SIGCOV. No evidence of legal recognition that would allow a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass. WP:NGEO also excludes maps (which is what Philip's Modern College Atlas for Africa appears to be) from being used to support the notability of geographic locations. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @FOARP: In Oudad does get a mention in something called Philip's Modern College Atlas for Africa. Lennart97 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2021 (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.
