Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Areri Lolammod: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
start discussion
 
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
:({{Find sources AFD|Areri Lolammod}})
:({{Find sources AFD|Areri Lolammod}})
You know, if you have to call it a "populated place", that's not enough better than a "locality" as far as knowing what it really is. In this case, it appears to be, yes, another blank spot on the globe, if not someone or other's map. Geonames admits it's "unverified", and I couldn't verify it either. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You know, if you have to call it a "populated place", that's not enough better than a "locality" as far as knowing what it really is. In this case, it appears to be, yes, another blank spot on the globe, if not someone or other's map. Geonames admits it's "unverified", and I couldn't verify it either. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Im concerned Mangoe is applying Anglosphere standards for a near-governmentless region of Africa. That doesn't sound right to me. [[Special:Contributions/92.9.152.17|92.9.152.17]] ([[User talk:92.9.152.17|talk]]) 23:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:35, 19 February 2018

Areri Lolammod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You know, if you have to call it a "populated place", that's not enough better than a "locality" as far as knowing what it really is. In this case, it appears to be, yes, another blank spot on the globe, if not someone or other's map. Geonames admits it's "unverified", and I couldn't verify it either. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]