Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modakeke

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 here among overal participants is for article retention. Hopefully the article will be copy edited to address concerns presented herein. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modakeke

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

"Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, and original theories and conclusions." - WP:DP. Also use of obvious bias towards the place being described. Person who created the page sounds like they live there, but unfortunately is making many claims with no sources at all. Jacob102699 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC) There is also an extremely incorrect population on there based on the page, List of cities in Nigeria by population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob102699 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article on a populated place, with a history of conflicts. I have added several references, and it is also covered in a Britannica article. I agree with the nominator about the likely inaccuracy of the given population (151,515 seems the most likely, though I have not found a sufficiently strong primary source to replace with that), and much of the article text is needing substantial pruning/renovation, but that is a matter for normal editing; complete absence of an article on a town of this size is not the answer. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like much of the article is copied from modakeke.info. Place certainly exists. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 'modakeke' has 7,320 google books results, so the nominator hardly read WP:BEFORE prior to initiating the AFD. Clean-up and POV issues can be dealt with, but are not reason for deletion. Do note that Modakeke can refer to both the town as well as the community as such. --Soman (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES, we have kept almost every inhabited place on Earth. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While an article with this title should probably exist, I have some sympathy with the nomination. Google Maps gives just one result for the name, placing it in an uninhabited spot a few miles north of Ife, Nigeria; Bing and Wikimapia produce similar results, except that the uninhabited spot they identify is a few miles west of Ife; and while some other maps also indicate positions, none seem to provide anything that is accurate enough to be verifiably different from Ife. Modakeke's existence does seem to be verifiable from written sources and there are plenty of references to conflicts between Ife and Modakeke - but, when it comes to its geographic position, several historic ones suggest that Modakeke should be close enough to Ife to be within Ife's urban area on current maps and none of the current ones give enough information to differentiate it geographically from Ife. Matters are further confused because while some of the references to very long-standing conflicts between Ife and Modakeke seem to state they are separate places ("villages" in some accounts - which is odd as Ife, at least, seems to be a sizeable city), others refer to "clans" or the like - which might suggest a communal conflict between two groups living in what is essentially the same place. I can give no real answers - but the article does seem very problematic, and I am not seeing enough agreement between possible sources to sort the problems out properly. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2014 (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.