Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hararkacumargruuniya

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hararkacumargruuniya

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Town" in Somalia, no sign of human settlement anywhere near the claimed location, down in the one source as a "locality", etc, etc. Hut 8.5 22:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (retracted) -- I am coin-flipping a 50% chance that this is an elaborate hoax spread across several sites. E.g., here, where a maximum possible zoom reveals no structures or other recognizable human-built objects (e.g., roads) in the middle of drywash desert scrubland with nothing else in even distant proximity. If it ever were anything once, such as a seasonal watering hole for animal-driven caravans, there are no signs left today. There's no record of any military engagement in the location, or of any person (notable or otherwise) being from it or spending time at it.--Froglich (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think it's an elaborate hoax. The term is in a database as a name for an area rather than any sort of settlement. Lots of other clickbait sites are copying that database. Somebody created a load of articles on Somali "towns" based on that database entry and didn't bother to check that they are towns or that they are real. There are quite a few of these. Hut 8.5 07:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. I'll retract my delete, and suggest that the article be edited (if it hasn't already) to reflect that it is a region rather than a town. It should also be moved to the correct three-word name scheme.--Froglich (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think we can really say it's a region either, just a place. It may well be a local name for a patch of wilderness. This database has proved itself to be fairly unreliable even with regard to places in Somalia where it says people do live. In any case I don't see how we can argue that it meets the notability guidelines if nobody lives there and we don't have any sources other than one database entry. The guidelines are very generous towards places where people definitely live, but for patches of uninhabited wilderness we need significant coverage in sources. That is completely lacking here. Hut 8.5 12:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think an article about an empty small region isn't the best thing here. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Amazingly there appears to be a single building at the location, but one house does not a town make (except, apparently, in Kansas), and "localities" are not notable without some text. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.