Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enkhali


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While meeting GEOLAND is generally sufficient for keeping an article, we do require evidence in the form of reliable sources that the topic is in fact a legally recognized settlement: that seems to be missing here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Enkhali

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD declined for this essentially fallacious article on a non-existent Dubai community. This is not a notable place, the article does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND, the place named is not mentioned in any secondary sources and most definitely not in the publication given in the bibliography. One of a number of essentially fallacious place articles created by this blocked user, even the image is a generic picture recaptioned to be of 'Enkhali'. For some reason this got missed in the cleanup effort following the creator's block. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my reasoning on my prod. "As a community with a population of only 2, only sourced with passing mentions in statistical databases, I feel this community is entirely non-notable." Bensci54 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It may "feel" non-notable, but it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place, which is one of our lowest notability standards, and for good reason. Problem is, it's in Sector 6 per the census, and there's not a lot more we can say about it that I can find - the deletion rationale isn't invalid. Since the creator has been blocked I don't really care if this is deleted - just want to note that whatever happens, anyone who wants to re-create this article would be doing so on a topic we've deemed notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It not only "feels" non-notable, it "IS" non-notable. It's claimed to be in the middle of the totally, utterly unpopulated area between Awir and Lahbab - it's a desert. It's not a village or a community or a recognised place - it's desert. Seriously, dunes and camel camps. Desert. I quite often drive past there. There's not even a signpost off the E44 to mark 'Enkhali' - it's not even searchable on Google maps. It's all sandy and deserty and, well, deserted. It has no houses. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It's as unpopulated as it's possible to be these days in Dubai, the emirate. Nobody's deemed it notable for anything - it's a wholly unpopulated place. It's the Norwegian Blue of populated places, nailed to its perch - in the desert. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It's a populated, legally recognised place. Is it worth keeping as this stub? Probably not, but I have no problem if anyone wants to re-create this if there's anything else we can say about it. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You remember the great John Carter train crash? My run of >150 UAE AfDs? This user was on the way to creating another one, having got hold of a PDF from Dubai Municipality and then creating articles about 'places' he found in there. Whatever, wherever 'Enkhali' is supposed to be, it's not a village or populated place and its existence isn't supported by any RS. Between Awir and Lahbab there is literally nothing bar a palace - with the vast majority of the land to that side of the road between Awir and Lahbab cordoned off around that palace - and some civil infrastructure - there's a place name Nakhali (a concrete plant named for it) just as you get to Lahbab, arguably subsumed by the expansion of Lahbab. Anyway, that's me - as always with appreciation for your concerns re: GEOLAND (I have saved many a place at AfD having gleefully nicked your arguments! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you absolutely positive it doesn't contain a protected Norwegian Blue nesting site or maybe a ministry-approved Silly Walks Training Academy? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can never be 100% certain these days. We live in terrible times... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Question. Is there a list of political subdivisions published by the government that we can refer to? In some Canadian provinces, for example, an area too sparsely populated to have a municipal government is called a "local improvement district"? It would be nice to know how the Dubai government characterizes Enkhali. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominator who knows this place. Or rather, knows this place's non-notability. Desolate, God-forsaken, lifeless places like this serve a vital role: they help hold the Earth together. In this part of the world, that's all some places are able to do. It's a noble and essential task; if just one of them let go, the Earth's crust might begin failing; Alexander would be among the first to go. So credit is due them. Just not articles without reliable sources.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking over dozens of AFDs tonight, most of them irresolvably divided between Keepers/Deleters, I needed a laugh, thanks, A. B.. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * delete This thing smells of fraud. There is a reference to it in the census document, but it's striking that the reference is used only to justify the area of this place (whatever it is), with the population of two and the population density of zero conveniently tucked into the infobox. Meanwhile, the original source of the image of the camel does not mention this place or for that matter any other place other than "unnamed road", and there's no source given for the location of this place. Given that it was created by someone with a history of such frauds, I have to wonder why anyone is defending it. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mangoe:
 * SportingFlyer -- a very experienced editor, editing in good faith. I trust them 100%, ethics-wise. I suspect that if they ever did decide go to the dark side, it wouldn't be on behalf of a place like this.
 * Jad Krimeed -- the article's creator was a problem and is now indefinitely blocked.
 * The Camel -- the camel wandered away.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just interpreting our policy very literally - it's a legally recognised place, so it's technically eligible for an article. Whether this is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it's more like you are interpreting the one official source literally, which our experience with GNS and GNIS and the Iranian census leads me to reject. That one word in a column heading is not good enough; even were it not a translation I would doubt it. Look, two people is a community only in the most mathematically reductive sense, and even then I have to assume they live in two separate houses. Also, it's only a guideline anyway, but in any case the history of these discussions is that we have required more evidence of a settlement than a tag or column heading in a government listing. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2023 (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.