Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qorikuxaar


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Qorikuxaar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Somali "town" which doesn't exist. The one source cited says it's actually a valley and not a populated place. No trace of settlement on satellite imagery and no sources to satisfy WP:NGEO (unless you count a couple of forum posts about what a weird name it is).  Hut 8.5  15:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm extending the conversation in order to give time to weigh the notability of the valley. If no further discussion ensues I encourage the next reviewer to close as "delete" without further extension.
 * Delete Non-existent town. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Hut 8.5 is right that this seems to be a valley rather than a town, which is a quick fix in the present wikitext. We should really be !voting on the notability of the valley, as that can at least meet WP:V based on the cited source alone. But WP:NGEO states that for a geographic feature can be considered notable only if "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist," which isn't true in this case. However, if anyone can locate any sources on the valley, the article should be kept - regardless of whether the town exists or not. MarginalCost (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to point out that Cebuano Wikipedia seems (to someone who had never knowingly met the language before) to have a better (and more accurate) article on this topic than we do here - written by a bot. The sources given are all English-language ones, which I think I would trust for verifiability if notability was otherwise established. However, what I can't tell for certain is whether the Cebuano article gives anything beyond statistical-level data - if it does, then WP:NGEO would be established, but I suspect that it does not. PWilkinson (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that all the bot has done is used the geographical coordinates of the subject to look up climate data for it and added that to the article. I can't see anything there which goes beyond statistical data and location. That article also says that it's a valley and not a town, according to Google Translate. WP:NGEO is very generous to populated places but in the case of a valley we need sources that give a significant information of verifiable information about it.  Hut 8.5  22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 17:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is one sentence and one picture, basically. And no sources. That can never prove notability by itself. This article should be deleted, but if there is any hope for the English Wikipedia viability of the article's subject matter, then maybe it should be moved to a draft space. I find it noteworthy that PWilkinson pointed out the Cebuano counterpart of this article, because that is a better example for an article than this English one. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:20, 10 April 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.