Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangwana

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. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dangwana

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

There are several Dangwanas in South Africa, but the map doesn't show one 30 km from Mt Frere. Kvng (talk · contribs) supplied coordinates for a Dangwana that is 138 km from Mt Frere. One could argue that 30 was a typo for 138, but that seems unlikely to me, especially since there are cities closer to the Dangwana of the coordinates that would have made better reference points. Without sources, it is impossible to verify or improve this article. ubiquity (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy with a change of wording to "Dangwana is a rural village in South Africa located 36 km west of Port St Johns," which will match the provided coordinates and can be verified on a map, but I am convinced this is not the place originally intended. ubiquity (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change. Thanks for the suggestion. ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:IINFO. If Wiki had an article for every single village out there in the world, I could see this, but since it doesn't, delete. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Wiki does have an article for every single village out there in the world, or it can, per WP:GEOLAND. Sorry folks: if it exists as a distinct village -- i.e. not merely, say, a subdivision of a larger town -- it doesn't have to meet GNG, it is inherently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree it doesn't have to be notable, but it has to be accurate and verifiable. The current article says 30km from Mt Frere but supplies coordinates 138km away. My point is not that is is not notable, but that it is not verifiable. ubiquity (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and that's why I had phrased my response to SanAnMan the way I did. But you're right: until such time as we can verify that this village exists where it is claimed to exist, there is a valid case for deletion that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also a bit confused as the Dutch article suggests that it is one of many districts in nl:Port St Johns? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The village at the given coordinates may very well be considered part of Port St Johns, it's close enough. Without a source, it's hard to tell. ;-) ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. AfD is not the place to try and fix errors in articles. ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-verifiable, WP:V trumps WP:GEOLAND. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. In fact Dangwana is a stream and a census place for the area around the stream, with clusters of huts here and there. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - PPS. I loved a Dangwana link I've found meanwhile: "Let Cosmetized allow you to look for the most appropriate Liposuction in Dangwana " ROTFLMAO. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, this is about verifiability, not notability. I am happy to see the tiniest scrap of earth be listed here if it can be shown that there's really something there. But WP:GEOLAND never says geographic features need not be verifiable. In fact, it mentions the requirement for verification in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Sources. This policy also says:

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low...
Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG.

Without a source, how can we even determine which is the case here?

Maps can be used for verification (though not for notability), and I've said earlier that if the article is to be about the village at the coordinates currently given in the article, then I'll accept that no further verification is required, because that village is on the map. But if the article is to be about a village 30 km from Mt Frere, then we need a source. ubiquity (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see the article has been changed so that it is now consistent with the village near Port St Johns. I'm happy to let it go at that, if others are. ubiquity (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made the change based on your suggestion above. Dangwana is on the map. Everybody happy now? ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GEOLAND requires WP:V above and beyond a map. There's too much ambiguity in the comments to just arbitrarily pick one and decide that that's the one that was intended without a source. MSJapan (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as villages are basically certainly notable but only if they can be established as actually existing and there seems to be questionability regarding this thus delete and restart when better. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 21 June 2016 (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.