Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muleba, DRC

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. Consensus. The consensus here is in accord with our almost invariable practice: We do not normally keep places identified only as dots on a map, as many of them indicate individual structures or the like, but we do if there is any confirmation that it is a populated place, now or in the past. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muleba, DRC

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG. This is because its only "source" is the subject (Muleba, DRC) shown in a mapping program. A WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions of the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject cannot be confirmed and there is no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned here in this 1921 book, more numerously in this 1927 agricultural journal. I wonder why there are no more recent book cites? Has it changed names? Anyway, this would seem to meet WP:GEOLAND, which covers "even abandoned places." Keep. And once again, the nominator needs to be clear if he's going to start nominating in this area. Read GEOLAND if you haven't already. Named populated places do not have to meet GNG. Therefore even "trivial" mentions, if from acceptable sources, are sufficient to WP:Verify. We have a different benchmark for legally recognized populated places. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a real population center. As per WP:GEOLAND there is no such thing as a "non-notable" village/town/city. --Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure why this was relisted when the only delete !vote hinged on "no coverage in reliable sources", which was quickly shown to be false in subsequent !votes... but sure, I guess I can repeat: Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its existence on this map Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kasaï-Central. We have no sources that give more than the location, the name, and the province it is in. Only trivial mentions here... not enough for a standalone article. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is a dictionary entry with no good material for expansion.Burning Pillar (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar: I don't think I will vote in this AfD, but I just wanted to point out that as per WP:5P, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is a gazetteer. The distinction is important for geographic locations. --NoGhost (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we don't have basic info like population, or other statistics... Currently, the article only contains location and name. That's not enough material for a standalone article. It is possible that more information exists, especially primary sources, but... most of the small places will likely be a stub for a long time, or forever(WP:PERMASTUB); there is mostly local interest about those.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this content into Kasaï-Central, which currently does not cover constituent villages and towns, would lead to coverage that is out of WP:PROPORTION in that article. It's what's kept me from inserting even a wikilink in the province article to resolve the "orphan" tag currently on display; creating a section, or even a paragraph, to call out this one village would look utterly bizarre. Besides which, maintaining a separate article encourages expansion; if you want to permanently limit the information contained on this subject, a good way to do it would be to hide it away in some other article. Other benefits of a separate article for geographic subjects include easier interfacing with m:WikiMiniAtlas, WikiData, and foreign-language wikis. At the end of the day, WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and I think I'll stick with the latter. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First !vote wrongly states the existence of this place cannot be confirmed. However, sources have been shown to the contrary. Obviously meets WP:GEOLAND. Also, the "fundamental principles" of Wikipedia are set out at WP:PILLARS. One of our fundamental principles is that we are a gazetteer. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 12 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.