Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fouka, Egypt (2nd nomination)

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 close. The last AfD, which was only a few hours ago, closed as withdrawn as it looks like proof of population was given (ie, the post office). I don't see any new evidence here to suggest that the area is unpopulated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add on one final note: I Google mapped the coordinates and sure enough, there's clear sign of it being a populated area. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fouka, Egypt[edit]

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

NN per WP:GEOLAND. This is apparently unpopulated despite the claim in the article and the map - this source seems to indicate there isn't anything within 3 km of the location. Kabahaly (talk)

Speedy keep - we just had this discussion and it just closed as keep. I moved because it was at Fukah and there were even less sources. Also, you more or less said the exact same thing I said in my nom. MSJapan (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was renominated for deletion 4 hours after the previous AfD closed as keep. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Looks like a WP:DISRUPT nomination. Nom cut and pasted the quickly discredited rationale from the previous AfD that was both withdrawn and closed as kept 4 hours ago. --Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the points made above. It would be awesome to have some kind of bot or automated system that identified immediate renominations like this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there was very recently a discussion that was closed as keep. I suggest a temporary ban on nominating this page be added. Notability is not temporary and this is notable. It's a copy/paste of the last nom and the word "this source" isn't even linked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:38, 28 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.