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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalahargo[edit]

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

Somali "town". Satellite imagery shows the claimed location has a handful of enclosures of some kind scattered around but there's no sign of a town or even a village. The one database entry cited describes it as a "locality" which means it's a place and people don't necessarily live there. No other sources to satisfy WP:V or WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete. Not so sure about this one. Trip Mondo has a page for it and describes it as a city. That's probably pushing it even for Somalia, this page reports a population of 1043 within 7km. Several weather sites are reporting weather for it, eg Accu Weather. The name is definitely in their database, it's not just a generic response, trying some of this users more dubious creations on the same sites (eg Qaydarhagoog) draws a blank. This fishing site is quite informative. It describes Kala Hargo as a sports fishing destination. Not quite verifying that it is an inhabited settlement, but it is definitely a tourist destination and hence notable. SpinningSpark 23:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- [1], [2] and [3] are just clickbait: somebody has run an automated process on entries from the database the article also draws from to create pages for the entries in the database. These don't have any real content beyond what was in the database. All the Somali places, including nonexistent ones, have several pages of Google hits for these kind of things - weather forecasts, travel destinations, Islamic prayer times, dating sites, even a site selling T-shirts. I'm less sure about your population estimate but there is a real town about 15 km to the west and I suspect that may be what it's registering. (It's possible it might be an estimate based on the general population density of the region, in which case it doesn't mean anything at all.) Hut 8.5 06:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I've struck my keep. I was being too enthusiastic. Frequently, unsourced articles on villages in Africa and Asia turn out to be genuine places and should be kept per WP:NPLACE. But this series are just mistakes by the editor in question misreading a database. SpinningSpark 08:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Szzuk (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit unfair to call it a hoax. The user seems to have been acting in good faith. Nor is it obviously wrong, since it appears in a database that does include many genuine settlements. So I oppose speedy deletion. Let the AfD play out just in case someone comes up with something. SpinningSpark 17:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has created by a user now blocked for sock puppetry. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a G3 candidate: it was created in good faith and you need to do at least a bit of research to establish that it doesn't exist. I've seen many similar articles which correspond to real settlements. The fact that the author was a sockmaster doesn't qualify it for speedy deletion unless they evaded a block to create it. Hut 8.5 18:06, 3 April 2018 (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.