Korai, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Currently cited sources are computer-generated descriptions based on opendb data that has not been reviewed by any editorial process and thus are not reliable.  I was unable to find any mention of a geographic location named Korai in extensive Google Books and Scholar searches, including searches for "Korai" together with related geographic terms and searches in Urdu and Pashto.  As there are no RS confirming the existence of this location and no text about it at Lower Chitral District or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa , I don't think there's a valid redirect target solution here.  signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan .  signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:GEOLAND .  Locality does exist.  [6] — kashmīrī TALK 16:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Google Maps does not clarify whether it is populated, whether it is legally recognized, or what kind of place it is (village, neighborhood, tract, gas station etc.) Without this information, it doesn't meet GEOLAND.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I honestly doubt that Google employees walk the globe asking locals for locality names.  Seriously.  If it's in the main Maps database, then this information certainly comes from an official source.  Otherwise, if your argument was to be accepted, we could delete 90% of localities from Wikipedia right away, because sources hardly ever confirm their population or legal status.  — kashmīrī TALK 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  Any official census document for the region, which is what's most commonly cited for stubs like this, establishes recognition and population in one go (there's some countries with less-than-reliable census data and/or that list non-distinct locales in their data, such as Iran, but that's a tangential issue in the case of this discussion).  Moreover, Google Maps includes a lot of crowdsourced data, and a lot of fake locations along with it ( [7] , [8] ).  signed, Rosguill talk 13:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, crowdsourcing on Google Maps does not include base features (geography, roads, localities, etc.) and is limited to points of interests (incl. businesses).  Crowdsourced POIs can be easily recognised by an Edit option.  Korai has not been crowdsourced but included by Google.  Also check satellite view of the locality.  — kashmīrī TALK 18:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's good to know about the crowdsourcing, but I'm still leery of basing an article entirely off of a Google Maps match.  Maps is a constantly-updating online resource with opaque, changing editorial policies that include batch-processing and crowdsourcing (even if the latter is sectioned off to certain map elements at the moment).  I don't think it's too much to ask for a single secondary source confirmation that this location exists as a stand-alone settlement.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, if you are unable to tell a village from a gas station on Google Maps, maybe you shouldn't use Maps or write about them?  Just an idea.  — kashmīrī TALK 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The gas station bit is in reference to the past mass-creation of stubs based on Iranian census information, which turned out to include non-settlement localities such as gas stations, etc. that were not readily differentiable to the editors creating the stubs.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kashmiri - " If it's in the main Maps database, then this information certainly comes from an official source" - An "official source" here is likely the US GEONNet Names Server (GNS) data.  This is both not "legal recognition" (the US cannot "legally recognise" a Pakistani village) and very often erroneous since it is usually based on poorly-compiled decades-old military maps.  For example a survey of GNS location-names in South Korea found many Japanese-origin names that had resulted from the US military authorities using Japanese people to compile location names.  See also the problems US military personnel had in Afghanistan when it turned out that their maps (based ultimately on GNS) had the wrong names for many locations.  FOARP ( talk ) 07:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting that an IP has added several new sources to the article, but none of them appear to mention Korai.  signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rosguill if you‘re referring to the IP I think you’re referring to, then it’s a sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Najaf_ali_bhayo .  Best, user: A smart kitten meow 17:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting also that I would revert the sock’s pagemove from Korai , but I don’t want to risk messing anything up with this AfD.  user: A smart kitten meow 17:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, it turns out that prior to any sockedits , this page (under its previous name Korai ) was a redirect to Kore (sculpture) : [9] .  I’m not going to revert back to that myself as I don’t want to potentially go against AfD procedure, but my ! vote would be to revert the move & reinstate the redirect .  Best, user: A smart kitten meow 17:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No reliable source provided in the article.  GMaps is not a reliable source - it's mostly data from GNIS and GEONet Names Server (both unreliable) with the add-on of user-submitted information.  FOARP ( talk ) 09:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The consensus at WP:RSP is that Google Maps can be used for finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information .  Your opinion about GNIS and GEONet is just your opinion, not a WP consensus.  See WP:GOOGLEMAPS .  — kashmīrī TALK 06:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not just their opinon - We have community consensus that GEOnet and GNIS "should not be used to determine notability" (see WP:RSP ).  I don't see any indication that Google Maps demonstrates official recognition, and WP:NGEO specifically excludes maps from establishing notability.  – dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No GNG coverage, no indication we could even presume sources exist based on being a legally-recognized populated place.  GNIS/Google Maps is not an acceptable source for assessing notability.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 07:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't apply GNG directly to localities.  It's WP:GEOLAND that should be applied here, and GEOLAND suggest leaving the locality in place.  — kashmīrī TALK 06:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No indication of notability via either legal recognition or GNG.  – dlthewave ☎ 13:02, 30 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete