Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lponga

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. Nothing presented here convinces me that this subject passes WP:GNG or the standards of WP:GEOLAND. Simply existing doesn't merit inclusion. If folks find reliable secondary sources about this place and chose to prepare a new article showcasing that, so be it.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lponga

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Geostub made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs. This one fails WP:GEOLAND which requires populated places to either be legally recognized or have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please don't just add a GEONAMES entry as a ref; community consensus has consistently been against using such databases to establish legal recognition or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, doesn't meet notability and single sentence article has little value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyDKeen (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a genuine, recognised and separate settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognized by whom? I don't see any evidence of legal recognition, and WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping a populated place article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS here to support notability. I've run a few searches, really not getting anything on this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The town appears on maps in tourism publications like this: [1]. It's clearly a populated, legally recognized place, or it wouldn't be included on maps of Malawi marketed to international tourists. Was a proper WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, maps cannot be used to meet WP:NGEO. Have you found any sources that could be added right now to establish verifiability? It turns out that none of the sources in the article even mentioned Lponga; the article creator was blocked for doing this. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources saying people crossed the Tanzania–Malawi border "at Lponga," but that's all that's available online that I was able to find. SportingFlyer T·C 13:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a border crossing; I cannot confirm it is a town based on what is available on the internet. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are NO reliable sources cited here indicating notability. At all. How are we supposed to have an article about this? Simply saying "there must be sources" is not an answer. FOARP (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic obviously lacks sufficient coverage to meet GNG and GEOLAND. Seems disingenuous to look at the article, provide no sources, and still claim otherwise. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2021 (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.