- 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 08:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Maqaxdameer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It would be nice if we could do a mass deletion of this block of mass creations, but there are some real places mixed in among the blank spots, and hey, if I have to look at each one to verify that it can't be verified as a town, everyone else has to do the same. Anyway, for the last of this morning's Somali not-towns we have another spot that geonames says is a locality, and whose coords drop us in a blank spot. And as is common the article creator seems to have run two words together but it doesn't matter: searching finds nothing but mirrors and clickbait, and no, I don't believe the site that says I can "chat with local people in Maqax Dameer." Mangoe ( talk) 11:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Geonames has it as Magax Dameer, and it shows up on OpenStreetMap in an area of clear human activity. I know that's not enough for verification normally, but these are really tough to do. I appreciate the AfD discussion. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, found it on geonames, but it's still just a "locality", and it's still just a spot in the middle of nowhere. I'm guessing that OpenStreetMap's "human activity" is just their spin on "locality".
Mangoe (
talk)
17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I actually looked at the satellite imagery on OpenStreetMap; the "human activity" is my own classification. Some of these are plopped down and there's not even a road within four miles; this town is at the intersection of a road and there appears to be cultivation very close by. SportingFlyer talk 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, found it on geonames, but it's still just a "locality", and it's still just a spot in the middle of nowhere. I'm guessing that OpenStreetMap's "human activity" is just their spin on "locality".
Mangoe (
talk)
17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete we need actual sources on the subject to have an article on it. Entries in OpenStreetMap and GeoNames, combined with guesses from an editor that people might be doing something here aren't enough. Hut 8.5 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's considered a populated place by several geodatabases and should be notable under
WP:GEOLAND. The difficulty is the fact it's in the hardest country in the world to
WP:V geographical information. I'm on the side of inclusion for all of these articles, but some simply do not make the cut. I don't think this is one of them.
SportingFlyer
talk
02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Geonames says that a "locality" is not a populated place, and in any case interpreting
WP:GEOLAND as essentially saying that all placenames are notable is silly: it's the same as saying, "there aren't any standards."
Mangoe (
talk)
02:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect these places are getting their information from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency database, which is a more credible source than OpenStreetMap, and it lists this place as a "locality". It doesn't look like "locality" necessarily means a place where people actually live, certainly "Areas/Localities" includes many things which don't qualify (including fields, forests and mines). WP:GEOLAND says that legally recognised places where people actually live are typically notable, and you do need reliable sources to prove this is met, even in Somalia. We don't have that here. WP:GEOLAND also says that maps do not contribute to demonstrating notability as they don't establish more than the existence of the subject. Hut 8.5 08:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Geonames says that a "locality" is not a populated place, and in any case interpreting
WP:GEOLAND as essentially saying that all placenames are notable is silly: it's the same as saying, "there aren't any standards."
Mangoe (
talk)
02:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no wiggle room around WP:V. If we can't verify that something exists, then we can't have an article on it. We don't just make stuff up. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2018 (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 delete. Sandstein 08:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Maqaxdameer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It would be nice if we could do a mass deletion of this block of mass creations, but there are some real places mixed in among the blank spots, and hey, if I have to look at each one to verify that it can't be verified as a town, everyone else has to do the same. Anyway, for the last of this morning's Somali not-towns we have another spot that geonames says is a locality, and whose coords drop us in a blank spot. And as is common the article creator seems to have run two words together but it doesn't matter: searching finds nothing but mirrors and clickbait, and no, I don't believe the site that says I can "chat with local people in Maqax Dameer." Mangoe ( talk) 11:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 12:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Geonames has it as Magax Dameer, and it shows up on OpenStreetMap in an area of clear human activity. I know that's not enough for verification normally, but these are really tough to do. I appreciate the AfD discussion. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, found it on geonames, but it's still just a "locality", and it's still just a spot in the middle of nowhere. I'm guessing that OpenStreetMap's "human activity" is just their spin on "locality".
Mangoe (
talk)
17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I actually looked at the satellite imagery on OpenStreetMap; the "human activity" is my own classification. Some of these are plopped down and there's not even a road within four miles; this town is at the intersection of a road and there appears to be cultivation very close by. SportingFlyer talk 18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, found it on geonames, but it's still just a "locality", and it's still just a spot in the middle of nowhere. I'm guessing that OpenStreetMap's "human activity" is just their spin on "locality".
Mangoe (
talk)
17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete we need actual sources on the subject to have an article on it. Entries in OpenStreetMap and GeoNames, combined with guesses from an editor that people might be doing something here aren't enough. Hut 8.5 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's considered a populated place by several geodatabases and should be notable under
WP:GEOLAND. The difficulty is the fact it's in the hardest country in the world to
WP:V geographical information. I'm on the side of inclusion for all of these articles, but some simply do not make the cut. I don't think this is one of them.
SportingFlyer
talk
02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Geonames says that a "locality" is not a populated place, and in any case interpreting
WP:GEOLAND as essentially saying that all placenames are notable is silly: it's the same as saying, "there aren't any standards."
Mangoe (
talk)
02:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect these places are getting their information from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency database, which is a more credible source than OpenStreetMap, and it lists this place as a "locality". It doesn't look like "locality" necessarily means a place where people actually live, certainly "Areas/Localities" includes many things which don't qualify (including fields, forests and mines). WP:GEOLAND says that legally recognised places where people actually live are typically notable, and you do need reliable sources to prove this is met, even in Somalia. We don't have that here. WP:GEOLAND also says that maps do not contribute to demonstrating notability as they don't establish more than the existence of the subject. Hut 8.5 08:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Geonames says that a "locality" is not a populated place, and in any case interpreting
WP:GEOLAND as essentially saying that all placenames are notable is silly: it's the same as saying, "there aren't any standards."
Mangoe (
talk)
02:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no wiggle room around WP:V. If we can't verify that something exists, then we can't have an article on it. We don't just make stuff up. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2018 (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.