Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Belbel (2nd nomination)


 * 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In Belbel
AfDs for this article:


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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Most of the sources are related to someone with the last name of Belbel with the word "in" in front of it. There are non-english sources mentioning the name however I only know English so I don't know if it's the same place. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Algeria. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This place was subject of several field studies regarding arid landscape irrigation systems. The article should be improved, but not removed.--Eranrabl (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason given by Eranrabl is exactly the same reason why the last nomination by was withdrawn. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 12:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Borderline. I couldn't find any legal recognition, so maybe in WP:GEOLAND this falls under [p]opulated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. However, I could only access to ref 1 and ref 3, but they are RS, coming from Journal of Arid Land Studies, and non-trivial, going into detail for the site's geography, government, farming techniques, and migration. These 2 refs are sufficient to meet borderline notability (WP:GNG needs 2 or more refs), assuming ref 2 also goes into fair detail (ping, ), then there's no doubt that this meets WP:GNG, but even if that's just a short mention, there's enough for borderline notability, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to pass GEOLAND since it seems to be a settlement with census data.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets content requirements and shouldn't have been nominated for deletion the first time let alone second.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eranrabl. Dsp13 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.