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 seems to be that this can be verified to exist, if only as a dot on a map, so it should be kept per our practice regarding geographic places and settlements. Sandstein 09:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chalwa[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable location or place. Google search turns up almost nothing because search for "Chalwa" turns up "chalva", the tasty treat. Joke of an article. Quis separabit? 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO PLEASE DELETE THIS REDIRECT -- Cnalwa Quis separabit? 01:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I honestly thought I'd be able to find something about this place to at least prove it exists. But I really couldn't. As far as populated places go, I tend to set a pretty low bar for a "keep." --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any mention whatsoever of this place in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some atlases show it. Even if you look up a map of Western Sahara on google that are some that show this place. A couple of the different forms of National Geographic atlases shows it on the map and even National Geographic Visual Atlas Of The World shows the place in light bold meaning that it's population is represented to be between 10,000 and 100,000. Hey that would make it bigger than notable small cities like Aspen, Colorado, or Montpelier, Vermont or St. Moritz, Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joburg Joe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Joe above, I did look at some maps and indeed found Chalwa on some of them ([1]). I'm utterly baffled that there are virtually zero references on this place to be found but based on that map, I have to change my !vote to "keep" merely because it appears to be a real place. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe -- so you changed your vote from delete to keep based on the fact that you "really couldn't" find out anything about the place and also that there are "virtually zero references on this place"? Interesting. Quis separabit? 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This has much the same problem as Aridal: the maps appear to be showing a feature that doesn't exist. GMaps shows that there is no inland road south through these two towns, and indeed no sign of any human-built features. The only thing that seems to be an "improvement" compared to Aridal is that the lack of text sources means they cannot contradict each other. A dot on a map is, by itself, not a good enough reference. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a real place (at least the UN thinks so, their map of the Western Sahara shows it), seems reliably sourced as to existence and recognition, thus passes WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND based on the UN map provided above by Carlos S. You have to hunt a bit to find it, but it is on there. Populated places of the present or past are regarded as inherently notable by longstanding consensus at AfD. Carrite (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That UN map is extremely problematic, and I do not regard it as a reliable source. There are a number of W. Sahara stub articles for which it is apparently the only source, and I have been unable to verify that any of them genuinely exist. It shows a road passing through Chalwa and running north into Morocco which I can find no trace of. I have looked at this and numerous other spots in aerial mapping, and have not been able to find a trace of any them. We cannot even verify from this map that it is a settlement; for all we know it could be a military base or even an uninhabited crossroads, assuming that it is even there. All we can verify from the map is the placename, and historically we have not considered that good enough justification for an article. I have not found a source for the cartography in this map, and given the problems in matching it up with other mapping (and especially aerial imaging) I don't think it can be assumed that it is based upon accurate information; and the first requirement of a reliable source is that it be accurate. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe fails WP:V Secret (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Settlements with over 10,000 residents are far to big of a populated place to have their article deleted and also far to big to deny it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joburg Joe (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joburg Joe -- you keep saying that but you proffer no evidence that it does exist; your pinky finger (which you keep citing) doesn't cut it. If it cannot be reliably sourced -- which is unimaginable for an actual location with more than 10,000 residents -- then it can be and should deleted and its existence questioned if not denied. Quis separabit? 15:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'm willing to keep geographical articles that can be cited to a census. I see no evidence that this can. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2015 (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.