Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahmaniyah Island


 * 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 Speedy keep   due to withdrawal of nomination by nominator. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rahmaniyah Island

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An admin declined prod with this reason : "Sources are likely not to be in English; places are inherently notable unless provably non-existent". There are no sources to prove the existence of this place. Unless someone provides a reliable, secondary source, I can't see the point in keeping this article. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Well, I'm not a fan of trying to prove a negative, but someone could check the Arabic wikipedia to see if there's some sources there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It might be this island.  I would say keep if it is.  Verified island adjacent to a city and even seems to have its own population centers.  --Oakshade (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Based on the arabic wikipedia article for it, Oakshade has identified the right location, and it is a populated place.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your vote is akin to an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:ITEXISTS. Maashatra11 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question How can you conclude it is a populated place? Because Oakshade said : "seems to have its own population centers" ? How is it in any way conclusive ? According to the Arabic google translation, it seems to be some minor "islet" (I'm not even sure if it's to be considered an island) located in a place called "Rahmaniyah" (for which we haven't got an article yet). Maashatra11 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has many houses on it, you can see them on Google Maps, they are accessible via a road bridge that has a separate article on the arabic wikipedia. (ETA: and that article says it is populated.)--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is populated - so what? It might be part of some other entity of greater importance for which we don't have an article yet. Maybe this little islet doesn't even have a name and it was named by user:faris knight only for the purpose of putting it on Wikipedia; We don't know anything yet, because we don't have reliable sources. ALL these articles in Arabic Wikipedia were created by the same user (including this English one) - and I can't see any reliable secondary sources (in the Arabic Wiki) that can prove their existence. In Google maps you can't see the name of this island. That's why I doubt very much it's called like that. For the moment it simply doesn't meet WP:GNG. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, we have treated all populated places as notable. The only question is whether the title of the article is correct, as we can be reasonably sure the island does have a name.  I think we can find that out.  I will try to look but am mostly AFK for a few days.--Milowent • talkblp-r  11:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NP. In the meantime, however, it just violates the core policies of Wikipedia, such as wp:TITLE (and virtually all of the other basic policies) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Both articles (in Arabic and English) were created by the same author, user:faris knight. Maybe we should contact him about this case. I can see he's very active in the Arabic Wiki. My sole concern is that we don't have any reliable sources to prove the existence of this place; further I very much doubt this place is called "Island" out of Wikipedia. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - An actual island that's adjacent to a major city and populated, kind of like the Roosevelt Island of Disuq.--Oakshade (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ITEXISTS. Maashatra11 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources proving your claim? Maashatra11 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Google maps shows the island described in the article. This island/geographical feature/populated place is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt its existence but its name. Who exactly says it's called "Rahmaniyah Island"? Maashatra11 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A dispute over the name is something to take up on the article's talk page, not bring to AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A search in google (of the Arabic name: ) generates (1) Wikipedia articles created by user:faris knight (2) unreliable sources such as blogs, forums, wikimapia etc. See WP:GNG. Without reliable sources, this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks... Maashatra11 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep As per above comments, it does exist and I found it referred to as "Jazīrat ar Raḩmānīyah", Jazīrat being the "English-Arabic" word for island. I added coordinates with two geo-references and the alternate name to the article. There isn't a lot of sourcing on the island but it does exist.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, given the new reference, I guess I'll have to withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you could still insist its non-notable to maximize the drama, but appreciate the withdraw. Glad we found out the proper name.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:19, 31 July 2010 (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.