Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egede, Enugu

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 keep. WP:SNOW keep; there are clearly editorial issues but those should be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egede, Enugu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It's not clear to me what, if anything, in this article is citable to the sources, but - I daresay this town exists, it is just possible it's notable, but "you can't get there from here" - if there is to be an article about it, you wouldn't start with that one. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The town certainly exists and the nomination's tentative comment about this indicates that WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. The topic therefore passes WP:GEOLAND and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is citable to the sources is simply a page-quality issue, AfD is not clean-up. we have to WP:AGF that the editor who wrote this did rely on the sources to write it unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. As such it is a sourced article. Also, per WP:GEOLAND an inhabited location should be presumed notable so long as it actually exists, and it clearly does. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. The key question here is is the town notable?, not is the article perfectly sourced?. Google Maps verifies that this town exists, which definitely makes it pass WP:GEOLAND. AfD is not the place for 'is it sourced' questions, that should really go to the talk page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a major rewrite, but it's a populated place. I'll add that Google Maps is NOT a reliable source for this kind of stuff. [1] [2] SportingFlyer talk 23:44, 16 December 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.