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

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(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

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

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
  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
  ]

• 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
  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
  ]

@

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

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: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.