- 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Kyanamukaaka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This doesn't make the case that this sub-county is notable in its own right. We already have an article on Masaka. The existence of primary schools does not establish notability. This doesn't even say that the place is in Uganda. If it were to be kept, it would need to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously, per WP:GEOLAND, and if it doesn't say what country it's in would it be so difficult for the nominator to add that to the article rather than whinge about it? This is supposed to be a collaborative project. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The article doesn't say that it is a legally recognized place. Legally recognized places are ipso facto notable, but it doesn't even say that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Much more important than whether the article says whether this is a legally recognised place, such as a municipality or subcounty, is whether reliable sources say so. Our coverage of Uganda and other African countries is abysmal, and it won't improve if people keep nominating articles about such obviously notable subjects for deletion. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- And, despite the available sources being more important than the article content, this does say that this is a sub-county, which is a legally recognised place. I try not to take notice of the identity of deletion nominators, since the strength of argument is much more important that the identity of the person making that argument, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to make a habit of calling for deletion of articles about subjects that are not related to the Anglophone West. We have enough problem with systemic bias here without editors going out of their way to exacerbate it. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Call to delete based on wp:TNT reveals that the nomination is simply wp:DISRUPTIVE. -- do ncr am 20:23, 22 December 2016 (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.
- 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Kyanamukaaka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This doesn't make the case that this sub-county is notable in its own right. We already have an article on Masaka. The existence of primary schools does not establish notability. This doesn't even say that the place is in Uganda. If it were to be kept, it would need to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously, per WP:GEOLAND, and if it doesn't say what country it's in would it be so difficult for the nominator to add that to the article rather than whinge about it? This is supposed to be a collaborative project. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The article doesn't say that it is a legally recognized place. Legally recognized places are ipso facto notable, but it doesn't even say that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Much more important than whether the article says whether this is a legally recognised place, such as a municipality or subcounty, is whether reliable sources say so. Our coverage of Uganda and other African countries is abysmal, and it won't improve if people keep nominating articles about such obviously notable subjects for deletion. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- And, despite the available sources being more important than the article content, this does say that this is a sub-county, which is a legally recognised place. I try not to take notice of the identity of deletion nominators, since the strength of argument is much more important that the identity of the person making that argument, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to make a habit of calling for deletion of articles about subjects that are not related to the Anglophone West. We have enough problem with systemic bias here without editors going out of their way to exacerbate it. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Call to delete based on wp:TNT reveals that the nomination is simply wp:DISRUPTIVE. -- do ncr am 20:23, 22 December 2016 (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.