Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afar Iridookii Buur Qumayo

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. Fails WP:V. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afar Iridookii Buur Qumayo[edit]

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

Personally, I interpret "X is a locality" as a synonym for "X isn't notable". At any rate, the coords take one to the side of a track running in a straight line due east and west, no habitation or indeed any other feature anywhere nearby. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can't just make up your own definition of the word locality. it is however implausible that this area is uninhabited since most anthropological information assigns specific clan homage to this place. Also these areas Somalis are known for being nomadic, hence no fixed population figures are going to exist. Also, periods of drought occur which could also cause population displacement. Furthermore, dispersion is also very likely because of militia groups which do operate in these areas. Another reason why it is difficult to find sources for this locality is because of the lack of a standardised Somali. This is not the fault of the local community. It is the fault of the weakness of the Somali government. Most of these places are transliterated in a myriad of ways, hence will not be useful when doing a google search. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a populated locality, it's just the name given to a bit of uninhabited desert. The fact it has been uninhabited for at least 15 years is proven (by Google maps) and I can't find the anthropological information mentioned by 92.9.152.17, if there had ever been a settlement there, there would be traces remaining, and there aren't any. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verification. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 7 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.