Talk:Ballo Wharf

Notability
Will someone please explain where in Wikipedia it says that communities are "inherently notable"? The Blade of the Northern Lights is the second Wikipedia editor to say that. I asked the first editor to point me to a guideline or policy that says that, and there was no response. I'd really like to see some support for this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (geography) would be the starting point; I don't agree with it myself, but that seems to be the consensus. Despite the fact that it's an essay, it's rather widely adhered to. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 06:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the pointer. Let's assume, just for argument, that the essay is a guideline. The question then becomes whether Ballo Wharf is a "populated, legally-recognized place" or a "populated place without legal recognition". Now, the article labels Ballo Wharf a "community". First, I'm not sure what that means, but, more important, how is a place - community or otherwise - legally recognized? I think in the absence of a source that says that Ballo Wharf is "legally recognized" ("lack of an official charter and legal boundaries and other documentation"), we have to assume it's not. If so, then we'd have to apply the "case-by-case" notability language in the essay. And, again, personally, I don't think Ballo Wharf is notable because there's virtually nothing about it (no "evidence ... of substantial non-trivial information"). I'm therefore inclined to put the notability tag back in. I'm also inclined to nominate it for deletion. I'd appreciate your views, though, before I do any of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, go ahead, I don't have strong feelings either way. I don't particularly agree with the idea that every inhabited patch of land is inherently notable, so maybe this could be a turning point. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added it back. At some point, I'll nominate it for deletion - maybe that will stir up some discussion. Maybe I'll post something first to WP:N/N.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

US military intelligence seems to think Ballo Wharf is worth listing in a database. getamap, mapquest, and google all believe that the place exists. Is there any reason to doubt any of the information? (This is not a rhetorical question, there may be a problem in what to believe.) http://www.geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-1901840&fid=5762&c=sierra_leone#MAP shows both a "Ballo Wharf" and a nearby "Barlo Wbarf" (yes, "Barlo Wbarf"). The coastline runs from northeast to southwest. The satellite view is good enough to see the tops of houses alongside a beach that connects those two points. Another source says that "Ballo Wharf" is the same as "Barlo Wharf". I'm sure that someone that lived in one of those houses would have an opinion about where he or she lived, and would reasonably believe that that place was "worthy of notice", and I would agree. But another map I saw shows Ballo Wharf on a coastline that runs from northwest to southeast. Looks like the topic needs analysis and there is some possibility that the name is bogus, but I see no current reason to consider deleting it. Note that WP:5 is "fundamental principles" which is higher than listed with policy, and states that Wikipedia is partly a gazeteer. Next place I would look is on government websites from Sierra Leone, looking for a map. Unscintillating (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a discussion on the issue of notability going on at WP:N/N. Feel free to contribute there, but I don't agree that just because a "place" exists on a map and people live there, it deserves an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you not agree? Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just line drawing. At some point, places aren't notable. From what I understand so far about Ballo Wharf, it's crossed that line.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the previous respondent has deleted a reference that shows that the United Nations also verifies the existence of Ballo Wharf. Unscintillating (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gee, now I'm a "respondent". Here's what's in the article now: "In 2000, after fighting broke out in Port Loko between Revolutionary United Front and Unamsil Nibatt members, then-Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Anan stated there were reports of "an influx of internally-displaced persons" to Ballo Wharf." It shouldn't be in the article. It's a primary source, and you're misinterpreting it, which underscores the danger of citing primary sources. The portion of the source you're using says at the outset: "The following is a near-verbatim transcript of a briefing with UNAMSIL spokesman Hirut Befecadu and military spokesman Lt. Commander Patrick Coker". Based on what follows, I don't believe that Kofi Anan stated that there were reports; he only made the first three points (at the top of the section). The rest is someone else talking, probably either Befecadu or Coker. Moreover, how can you remove a crucial word like "unconfirmed" from the sentence? I'm going to remove the material because I think it's of virtually no value and because it's a primary source. I would reluctantly agree to a rewording, though, something along the lines of: "In 2000, in the context of the UN's Sierra Leone peacekeeping mission, Ballo Wharf was mentioned." That's about all it's good for anyway. If you disagree, talk about it here rather than reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)