Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aridal

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. It's unusual for a geographic place to be deleted, but without sources to show it actually exists as a populated place, the only option is to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aridal[edit]

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

This is yet another in a series of questionable West Saharan placenames. Given the location of Boujdour it's impossible for any settlement to lie southwest of it; GMaps shows a "fishing village" on the shore at about the correct distance but doesn't give it a name [1]. this widely-reproduced map from the UN, however, shows "Aridal" east southeast of Boujour. Neither this place nor the road that supposedly runs through it appears to exist, if the aerial views are to be trusted. There is a salt lake/flat almost due east of Boujour which the caption identifies as "Sebkhet Aridal". The upshot of all this is that it isn't at all clear that this is a settlement by this name; at least the authorities we have are in utter contradiction. The article should be deleted lacking resolution of the disagreement. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on searches shows this meets WP:GNG and the noms assessment of it as a geographic location seems to be in order. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If no sources can be found and enough time was given for people to look them up. --Fixuture (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article may be in a poor condition, but the place exists per the United Nations (see their map of the Western Sahara showing it), seems reliably sourced as to existence and recognition, thus passes WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in another discussion, this map does not appear to be accurate. Many of the roads it shows don't seem to exist, and many of the "towns" it shows don't appear to exist either, including this one. A spot on a map is not good enough to claim that a "settlement" exists. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:OR? Cite some reliable sources for your contentions. One expects the UN is a reliable source; your say-so isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be reliable, a source has to be correct. I do consider GMaps and similar aerial imagery to be reliable WRT to the existence of geographic features (but not as to their naming), so if we appeal to some source that says, "X is a village at such-and-such a location", and we can see in the imagery that there are no structures there, then the first source cannot be believed. We have used this in deletion discussions in the past. Besides, it takes interpretation of the UN map to claim that that Aridal is a settlement. The maps in question merely show dots at a bunch of locations without legend, which isn't too surprising since their purpose is to show where UN installations are. Our List of cities in Western Sahara conspicuously fails to give a population even though, being in the Moroccan-controlled aera, it should have been counted. WP:NGEO does not say that dots on maps are notable in and of themselves, and in this case there is ample evidence that there is no settlement at that dot. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep considering that if it exists and is a geographic location, it is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails wp:v Secret (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion about whether the alleged inconsistency of the sources makes the place unverifiable. Sandstein 09:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had thought it well establish that a name on a map is not a plcae unless there is some collabotating information--which can isn some cases be deriveved from them ap, if of sufficiently high resolution. It has to at least indicate what sort of plae it is, Thee rule has been that allpupulated places, resent or past ,are authomatically notble,and Iconsider that the proper distinctiojn. In the absence of any apparent evidence showing this is a populated place rather than a trivial geographic fearture of some part, it fails WP:V. "This is something in the Shsara, but we don't know just what" is not encyclopedic content DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 October 2015 (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.