Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohmer


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kohmer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Searches revealed no results. Strongly indicative of a hoax. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This may be a poorly documented hamlet or valley near Kotli, Kashmir, Pakistan rather than a hoax, but I could not find even a dot on a published map. Maybe it is a variant spelling, since English skills seem lacking in blogs or other sites where "Kohmer" is hinted at as being a place. I found a blog entry from 14 June 2008, where someone said "Kohmer is a very beautiful vally (sic)" The blog poster names several people from there, including Tariq Gujjar, who is mentioned in this article as being from there. A 2006 post at the same blog said "Please add the pictures of Kohmer and Khad Gujran..." See also someone's photo of "Kohmer Gujjran Chowk" which locates it at 33° 26' 54.59" N  74° 1' 32.16" E  and has comments about "kashmir public high school kohmer." These last comments were posted recently, so in no way contraindicate a possible hoax. There is also this mention of "Kashmir public high school (Kohmer), Kohmer Gujuran KOTLI AJK". There is also "Government Boys Middle School Kohmer" in Kotli district. None of this is sufficient to verify the existence of such a hamlet or geographic entity, even if there is a school of the name, which might be named after a person rather than a place. If this is the best evidence we can find, I would favor deletion, since the stub has no content referenced to a reliable source.  Edison (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If we can find RS support for it being a district or town -- even if defunct -- it should be kept.  But we need that RS support for verifiability purposes, and I have not yet been able to find it.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normally I want to keep geographic articles, but in view of the foregoing discussion on the lack of sources, and the fact that the article is currently a POV garbled mess, it would not be a loss if the article is deleted outright (after a clean-up, there would almost nothing be left of it anyway). If and when RS are found, a proper article can be re-written. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete due to failure to verify that it is a hamlet, valley, or inhabited place, per above discussion. Edison (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2012 (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.