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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nuwaiseeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(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 ☎ 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does appear to be a genuine and separate settlement per WP:GEOLAND. Appears in this hotel's address and description. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm overlooking something, simply being a "genuine and separate settlement" does not satisfy GEOLAND. I don't think that appearing in the address of a hotel contributes to notability in any way either. –dlthewave ☎ 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the address gives no other town it is clear that this is the legally recognised postal settlement in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't accept post offices as evidence of legal recognition. In sparsely populated areas, the postal district will often simply take the name of the village or hamlet where the post office is located, even if that location is fairly insignificant. –dlthewave ☎ 13:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention a post office. I have no idea if it has a post office. And it's clearly a substantial settlement (as a look at a map will confirm!). Being "insignificant" is not a reason to fail WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 9 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) 23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of legal recognition, no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. As much as I often agree with Necrothesp in other areas, no, merely having an address is not evidence -at all- of legal recognition, which requires some evidence of self-governance/administration, and not simply being part of a larger administrative unit. All the address does is allow a post-man to find you whilst delivering post, it does not involve any process of law. The reason dlthewave is mentioning a post-office is that these are the source of many postal addresses. There is no WP:GNG pass here either - the thing about it having the hottest recorded temperature in the middle east is a one-sentence mention. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but that's not true. British villages and hamlets, which have no separate administrative/self-governing status (that's the parish, which usually consists of several such settlements), have always been held to be notable if they are recognised as separate settlements with signs showing their name on the access roads. I see no reason why that standard should not be applied elsewhere. Different countries have different ideas of what a settlement is. It certainly doesn't require actual recognition as a separate administrative entity. It merely requires recognition by a government agency (e.g. a local council) as a distinct settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:WAX argument. The guide specifically says legal recognition, that is, recognition through a process of law by, for example, being given certain powers. It does not say administrative recognition, or even mentioned in a government document, or even has a sign (and literally anything can have a sign!), which are clearly broader terms. In reality most British hamlets are typically GNG passes based on local histories/newspapers rather than WP:GEOLAND#1 passes, and the ones that fail GNG should probably be deleted (e.g., Cross-in-Hand is a hamlet I'm familiar with which is facially a GNG fail as it presently stands, with also no sign of legal recognition EDIT: though I've now added a couple of refs that make it a GNG pass). FOARP (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet consensus disagrees with you. Having a nameboard erected by the council clearly is legal recognition. My point is that it doesn't need to have "some evidence of self-governance/administration" as you claimed above. That's not the same as legal recognition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? There is no such guideline, policy, RFC outcome, or even essay. A sign is simply a sign - or do you think laybys have legal recognition? Car parks? Public toilets? FOARP (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not have to be written down to be consensus. If a settlement has a nameboard erected by the council at the entry points then it is clearly legally recognised. Not toilets or a car park. Not just a sign pointing to it. And if you're still not sure what I mean, this is what I mean, or, for a hamlet, this, which is the standardised British settlement nameboard erected by councils all over the country. Here's one in France. Clearly recognised settlements with a sign erected by the council to acknowledge the fact. But with no self-government or administrative independence. How anyone can claim that recognised settlements are not encyclopaedic is frankly beyond me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus does not have to be written down to be consensus" - um, how else do you ever get a consensus for anything on Wikipedia, a written-word forum? We have enough trouble with people imagining consensuses that never actually existed on this site.

"If a settlement has a nameboard erected by the council at the entry points then it is clearly legally recognised." - Road signs in the UK are mounted by a number of different agencies, including the highway agency, and unofficial road signs can be put up by anyone. Village name-plates are typically ordered by the parish council - you can even order them yourself if you think one should be on your road and the parish council supports you. Simply the existence of a sign does not prove anything because signs can come from anywhere and be erected by anyone - it is the existence of a parish/village council etc. that needs to be shown. Frankly, if (which I doubt) we've been allowing articles just because the settlement had a hotel with an address in that settlement, then we shouldn't have been doing so.

"How anyone can claim that recognised settlements are not encyclopaedic is frankly beyond me" - Really? Is it really impossible to comprehend that, if we simply cannot write an actual encyclopaedia article about something due to lack of anything to write about, then we shouldn't? What, you think we should try to write contentless articles? FOARP (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Further, scrolling through the first ten pages of a google books search yields multiple sources which could easily be used to prove Al-Nuwaiseeb is a legally recognized populated place. Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE search was not done by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 - which GBooks hit are you referring to specifically? I see bare mentions as a crossing-point/potential place for a free-trade zone and that's it. I don't see 10 pages of result using speech-marks to limit my search to books that actually mention the subject. There's no evidence of either a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass or a WP:GNG pass here. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see if a week brings us closer to consensus. At the moment, it's not one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep legally recognised as a district/area of Kuwait, not quite a town but probably one step above based on the Kuwaiti geographic hierarchy. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The sole additional source actually produced during this entire discussion is a bare mention in an NYT interactive opinion-piece, obviously not RS or significant coverage. Lots has been said above about how "there must be sources", but no actual sources have been produced. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold and relisting for one more week. I was *this* close to closing as "no consensus." Looking forward to seeing some sourcing. Maybe even some WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. as an exception. Since it is used as an example of a temperature extreme in a very prominent source, it's reasonable that people may want some information on it, and this is the place they would belikely to look. reasonably look.. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 24 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.