Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangoana

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. Evidence has been provided that this village meets WP:GEOLAND. Perhaps users here may be interested in improving the article with references provided herein; it is presently rather poorly sourced. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoana[edit]

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

No sources, nothing indicating it is notable. The content isn't really worth merging. Yellow Diamond (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the NGA GEOnet Names Server brings up nothing by this name in Pakistan (there is a village in Madagascar, apparently) which isn't a good sign. A small village or compound does appear to exist at the given coordinates, but Google Maps declines to name it. The article was created by a three-edit account, so its possible we are looking at a hoax or a gross misspelling here. FWIW, WP:GEOLAND is the relevant notability guideline; I can find no evidence that the location is legally recognized (no postal code, not mentioned in the Pakistani census that I can see), so deletion seems appropriate. Happy to change my vote if someone more knowledgeable about Pakistani sources finds other information. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep, The census ref below is enough for me, appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In Census table (1998 is the most recent published Census: 1998 District Census report of Jhang. Census publication. Vol. 114. Islamabad: Population Census Organization, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. 2000. p. 246.) as "Mangoana QH", with a population of 74,753, so a significant population unit. Also on Google Maps [1] and here and it seems they have frequent power cuts [2] (as "Manguana"): Noyster (talk), 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Noyster, I've changed my vote based on the census ref you located. However something isn't adding up, the population figure doesn't jive with the satellite view offered by Google, which shows a rather small cluster of buildings - I just can't believe 74,753 people live (or ever lived) within the boundaries provided by Google. At a generous estimate of 250 buildings, that's nearly 300 people per building. Perhaps this has something to do with the "QH" designation, which I can't seem to find a meaning for - I wouldn't want to add it to the article until it's clear what was measured there. NGA GEOnet does have two entries for Manguana in Pakistan, the one with coords that best match Google's is an alternate name for what they've officially deemed "Chak Two Hundred Forty-One" (no deeplink possible, alas). Antepenultimate (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are: QH, Qanungo Halqa (an administrative subdistrict) [3]. The diagram on p. 38 here shows the QH as a tier intermediate between the District and the individual settlement. I also see Wikipedia has Mangoana is listed as a "locality" in {{Neighbourhoods of Chiniot}} and as a village in the list in Bhawana Tehsil. The likelihood is that the name Mangoana is used for an individual village and also, for administrative purposes, a group of villages. The situation is less than crystal clear but I think there's enough to call it a "recognised populated place": Noyster (talk), 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per above this is a real population center which are notable regardless of size or obscurity. --Oakshade (talk) 22:42, 27 December 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.