Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lol, papua new guinea

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. The consensus is that there is insufficient information to determine whether the place exists, let alone whether it is legally recognized or meets WP:GNG. Mz7 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, papua new guinea[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this place meets WP:GNG. Not sure about WP:GEOLAND as I don't know if this is legally recognised or not. Adam9007 (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until evidence is found that it isn't legally recognized. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. Carrot official (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any definitive proof that it exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Weather Channel count? Because it's the only proof I can find that it exists. Primefac (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only "source" has a disclaimer that states "Information on this page comes without warranty of any kind". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a standard disclaimer found on all sorts of published material, many of which would be considered reliable sources, from technical manuals to travel guides to scientific information services. It just means you can't sue them. Colapeninsula (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to find a good source, yet I can't verify this exists. When verification fails, WP:PAPER does not apply. I think this started as a hoax online - get it, LOL? Bearian (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw this a while back, but fence sat. Ultimately, I agree with Bearian in that this currently fails WP:V. The only source in the article is a personal website with an fairly obvious disclaimer attached. Even if it was appropriately sourced, I'd be concerned that it may not expand past a one-line permastub and would be better off redirected to the article about the province it is in. Lastly, deletion doesn't mean it is gone forever - no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources do appear. Fuebaey (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 22 April 2017 (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.