Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Geography. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Geography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Geography

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locust Grove, Wayne County, Indiana

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

The hits on the two churches named "Locust Grove" (one Methodist, one "German Baptist") suggests that this is actually a mistake in the map label itself, or that this is a very diffuse locale. What is actually there now is a sprawling intersection which goes back as far as aerials show; the oldest shows a house at the interchange, but it disappears, and around 1980 what appears to have been a hotel was built a short ways north; it's gone now, leaving only the scar of its parking lots. Other than that I get nothing; two county histories mention the Baptist church, but it's off to the west at the county line, as is the Methodist church's cemetery. Neither history mentions this as a town. A rail line runs nearby but I have nothing indicating there was a stop here. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with these other Indiana AFDs, it seems that very little or almost nothing noteworthy was here ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 12:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Yok Noi Waterfall National Park

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

Fake, non-existent subject. There is no such thing as a "Sai Yok Noi Waterfall National Park", only a Sai Yok Noi Waterfall in Sai Yok National Park, both of which have existing articles. This page was created with the title Sai Yok Noi Waterfalls, but was later renamed to Sai Yok Noi Waterfall National Park without any explanation or modification of its contents, which seem to be about the waterfall. The content appears to be AI-generated and is not suitable for merging to any of the existing articles. Paul_012 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly AI generated (see ?utm-source=chatgpt.com in URLs of refs) content fork. Speedy delete if possible. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we shouldn't rush to conclusions, we should inform the writers about the shortcomings so they can improve and fix them. Thanakorn.guy (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, me and Paul 012 have reverted your ~~cut-paste moves~~ non-constructive edits multiple times, along with a warning (and links to pages regarding help with editing) multiple times. This action is after you failed to listen, discuss or understand the mistakes with this article. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't see that any copy/pasting was done. All the user's contributions are to the article currently being discussed, and don't appear to contain previously existing Wikipedia content (as it's newly AI-generated). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch the cut-paste move part, got a bit confused with merge and history merge tags, my bad. Thanks Paul! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that some of my work may have errors, may have neglected comments from others, that's because I'm just starting to practice making Wikipedia for the first time, I may be new to Wikipedia, I try to understand it every day, so I think this work is very important to me, I think I can improve and fix it, I want many people to help comment on me because I want it to be perfect. I have to apologize for the mistakes, what can I fix now or do you have any suggestions that I should do. Thanakorn.guy (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above, and frankly I think the article on the waterfall ought to be merged into that of the park. Mangoe (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not exist. I merged the waterfall stub to the real park's article. Reywas92^Talk 13:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. This article is clearly AI generated Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it shouldn't be deleted because some of the data has never been done before. As for the existing data, although it's good, it's still considered small. I think it's better to merge it rather than delete it. Thanakorn.guy (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the data is not from AI, there may be some incorrect titles, but we can tell the writers to improve it, for the best benefit of the readers because there is more data compared to the topics that have been done by people before, or maybe merged. 2001:FB1:21:BADC:C0AA:297A:3710:9CF9 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2025 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milltown Volcano

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

Hoax? No idea how this got accepted at AfC, there seem to be no sources at all about Milltown Volcano[1], and at least some of the sources included (I couldn't access all of them) don't even mention either Milltown Volcano or Hoover Hill (e.g. source 6[2] is about Mole Hill, and source 7[3] isn't even about New Jersey... Fram (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Jersey. Fram (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. The referenced USGS topo maps do not contain any mention of a Hoover Hill or a Milltown Volcano, and Refs. 6 and 7 are about totally unrelated subjects. Furthermore, the peak of the hill (supposedly 1893 feet) is higher than the highest point in New Jersey. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:HOAX. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 14:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- would be cool, but I can't find any information searching DuckDuckGo either. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not mentioned in sources linked. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I would appreciate New Jersey having its own volcano (other than Bruce Springsteen, of course), I can't find a mention in any of the sources listed, but there is no in-depth coverage of this volcano, hoax or real. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A handwritten, artisanal hoax; so pleasant to see in this day of generative AI. It looks like it was made by remixing parts of Rutan Hill with other material, but of course it's geographically impossible, not supported by sources, etc. Choess (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

East Haven, Indiana

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

As far as I can determine this is the same as the Richmond State Hospital, which I also find referred to as "East Haven Hospital". It is a historic and still active asylum started in the 1870s; the main building is a classic of period architecture. It also appears as a rail spot because there was a branch which presumably supplied the heating facilities with coal. The one thing I see no sign of is anyone thinking of this as a town in its own right: though it appears to sit outside the city limits, it was always associated with Richmond, and I find no reference to a predecessor town. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 24 May 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beesons, Indiana

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

Looking at the maps, this is a rail junction, not a town, and that's how it comes up in every meaningful hit I got. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a rail junction. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:NPLACE. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2025 (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.

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. asilvering (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottesville, Union County, Indiana

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

I found basically nothing of substance about this "no there there" spot. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least Charlottesville appears on topo maps starting in 1960: [4], but never as more than a crossroad with four buildings (only one of which is there today). Fails WP:GEOLAND for lack of information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeville, Indiana

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

Pne of a couple of places entered into GNIS from an 1876 atlas, the only other reference I can find is a passing inclusion in a list of towns. There's nothing in the topos or aerials, and the location is an unlikely point in the middle of a forest, but it's a safe bet that the coordinates estimated from the altas are inaccurate. Searching is heavily masked by every other Hopeville in the country. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hopeville is an unincorporated community..." Bollocks. Nothing on USGS topo maps: [5], nothing on Gmaps: [6]; this place seems to exist only in Wikipedia and the GNIS. It's possible the coordinates are an error, but regardless, the "is" in the text make this stub article a lie. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2025 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Corte Sgarzerie#Archaeological area. Treating this as a non-controversial redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological area of Corte Sgarzerie

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

Utterly redundant, repeating what is in Corte Sgarzerie#Archaeological area. Neither page is particularly long. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an AFD to do a WP:BOLD merge/redirect of an obviously redundant page. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 23 May 2025 (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.

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. On the basis of this discussion, any editor is welcome to strip the article to the bare bones. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misali Island

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

Completely AI-generated article. All the hallmarks (eg lists of three bullet points), flags as 99% on https://undetectable.ai/. Creator disputes this. — Moriwen (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tanzania and Islands. — Moriwen (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of how it was written, it does lean very heavily on one source at the moment - 16 of the 26 references are to the same PBS programme. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 16 reference to the PBS program refer to different timestamps in the video. It's using the reference multiple times in a very detailed way – which I thought was the correct protocol. TLJ3 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve proposed a revision that consolidates the PBS references from 16 separate footnotes to one general footnote with no time stamps, referenced only 4 times: Talk:Misali Island#Proposal to consolidate PBS references, eliminate time stamps. TLJ3 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/TNT The island, which is protected as the Misali Island Marine Conservation Area, is clearly notable with the Atlantic article, Time article, and PBS special, but the clearly AI-written content needs to be deleted. The creator is welcome to rewrite it with appropriate encyclopedic tone though. Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TNT - The AI generated stuff needs to go. Agree with Reywas. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on procedural grounds - this one is in such bad AI shape that we just need to remove it entirely and start from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim/accusation that this was AI generated is a subjective claim without evidence. The burden of proof lies with the editors claiming that the page was AI generated. I know for certain that it was not – because I did the majority of the writing. I've put a lot of time into this, and have gathered a lot of sources.

Check the edit history. It began in my sandbox. Since publication there have been more than 15 separate editing sessions over 7 weeks, building content iteratively, adding sources like BBC coverage, creating new sections. I properly disclosed paid editing throughout. Iterative sustained page development over weeks is not an indicator of AI generation. Other editors have contributed improvements and additions to the article.

I created the Talk page and have proposed how it can be improved. I was invited to create this page by conservation researchers who wish to become active on Wikipedia.

Can the page be improved? Absolutely. And I am gathering academic sources to add more information to the page. I welcome feedback on the talk page that can help me (and others) to improve the quality of the page.

I recently held a training for new Wikipedia editors so that they can contribute responsibly to pages related to marine biodiversity. I focused on the quality standards of Wikipedia and emphasized, NPOV, NOR, V, and COI. And I specifically said not to use AI. TLJ3 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC) TLJ3 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial sandbox version of the page from March 21. TLJ3 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I ask ChatGPT to write an article in the style of Wikipedia on Misali Island, it looks remarkably similar to your initial sandbox page: Misali Island is a small, ecologically significant island located off the west coast of Pemba Island, part of the Zanzibar Archipelago in Tanzania, East Africa. The island is renowned for its rich marine biodiversity, pristine coral reefs, and cultural heritage, making it an important site for both conservation and ecotourism. and contains all of the same headings almost verbatim, except it splits out Ecology and Conservation. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. easily fulfils Wikipedia:NATFEAT. Djflem (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2025 (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.

Humboldt Industrial Area, Minneapolis

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

Non-notable neighborhood. Cites a database entry, a blog post, and two passing mentions. Neighborhoods don't generally have inherent notability, and this one doesn't even have residents. Could reasonably redirect to the broader community of Camden, Minneapolis. — Moriwen (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camden, Minneapolis. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an officially designated neighborhood in Minneapolis by the City of Minneapolis. It is part of a complete series of articles on all official neighborhoods. Minnemeeples (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's little about this neighbourhood, and it does need to pass GNG. However, there's not nothing about this neighbourhood, including significant coverage in at least one book and a couple mentions in scholarly articles. The question is really do we redirect or do we keep a full set of the official neighbourhoods in this city? I think both are justifiable - GNG is questionable but not at zero, a redirect would destroy the fact every other neighbourhood has an article (though it's possible some others may need to be redirected as well). I'm erring on the side of keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has undergone substantial edits since the initial listing and was recently re-rated as start class. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yucca Inn, California

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:NGEO. Doing a WP:BEFORE search, topos only show this as a point, while aerials show no development besides dirt roads until around 1995. Not a place officially in the US census. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not actually an "unincorporated community" or place in the WP:GEOLAND sense. Per this article in the Hi-Desert Star in Yucca Valley, the Yucca Inn Motor Hotel was a 26-room hotel that opened in 1961. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated Yucca Inns, the motor hotel is by Twentynine Palms, while Yucca Inn (the community) is by Piñon Hills. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a "community"? Or just old USGS coordinates with no real context? Cielquiparle (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "community" as you said it. It's not officially a place in the US Census. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete There's been serious label drift, but the aerials and older topos make it quite clear it is a literal inn, specifically this place, whose web page helpfully states: "Two years after Hwy 138 was completed, Mabel & William Beekley built The Yucca Inn on what was part of an original 640 acre homestead. [....] The Yucca Inn has been in business almost continually since 1934." This is quite consistent with the older topos, albeit they take their time catching up with on-the-ground reality. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Is it the same as this Yucca Inn where there was a shooting in 1936? Cielquiparle (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, that one was by Upland and owned by a different owner.

Yucca Inn must have been a common name for early motels. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is evidence of several lodgings called "Yucca Inn" in California during the 20th century, there is no reliable source confirming that "Yucca Inn" is an "unincorporated community" as suggested by the 1981 USGS entry. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these unincorporated communities with no population have no sources confirming their existence. These mysterious 1981 USGS entries, which have been common with these articles I've submitted AFDs for, are not a reliable source. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are one or more other places also called "Yucca Inn," let those articles be sourced and evaluated independently. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2025 (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.

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 Withdrawn due to the WP:HEY upgrade‎. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baynesville, Virginia

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

Prodded by Oona Wikiwalker and deprodded with the statement: "Obviously it meets WP:NGEO; don't prod pages out of ignorance".

Contrary to the deprodder, this article very obviously does not meet WP:GEOLAND as it stands. The only source cited is GNIS, which does not satisfy the requirement for legal recognition and is unreliable. As even the article concedes, this place is "unincorporated", which is to say it is not legally recognised, and as such does not pass GEOLAND#1 and needs to pass WP:GNG.

There is no evidence in my WP:BEFORE that is does. Searches on Google and Newspapers.com show only passing mentions. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from this book we have "...was a guest this month of Westmoreland State Park, Baynesville, Virginia." Another book says "...Baynesville... are but a few of the place names that today are serviced by Kinsale, Montross, or Colonial Beach post offices; in many cases, only a small marker denotes where these smaller communities once existed." It's not in data.census.gov but is mentioned in old post office books and there's a 1910 postcard. Seems it could have been a smaller settlement that got swallowed by Montross. Not voting, but hopefully this helps our normal GEOLAND voters. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these is evidence of legal recognition as required by GEOLAND. Similarly, neither is SIGCv required by GNG.

could support a redirect to Montross if it is part of that. FOARP (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, SK#3. Obviously a real, legally recognised place, as can be seen from Schützenpanzer's search results. Nomination rationale doesn't understand what is meant by "legal recognition", among other things. It merely means an unincorporated area, a place that doesn't have its own municipal government. GNIS is reliable for saying "something called X is in place Y"; its problem is that it sometimes lists a community that's actually something else, like a hill or a big farmstead. But it doesn't just invent things, and a quick consultation of this location's USGS quads demonstrates that GNIS is correct here, since it's marked (by a legal entity, the USGS) as a community. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GNIS is explicitly excluded from WP:GEOLAND. “Unincorporated” literally means without legal recognition via incorporation. FOARP (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to expand the article using sources from Virginia's Chronicle, NewspaperArchive, the Library of Congress, and the US Postal Service. The history of this village dates to the 1600s, and by the early 1800s, some of the more prominent local residents and structures have appeared in historic sources. This village is less than a mile from George Washington's birthplace, historic mentions date into the 1700s, and there are plenty of significant sources regarding the "Baynesville boys", early postmasters, and early residents. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:HEY. Reworked article satisfies N:GEO Djflem (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will admit, as the creator, that the article as created left quite a bit to be desired, and was based on GNIS; I didn't know better at the time, but have since learned not to trust it. That being said, I think this article has been expanded sufficiently well to be kept. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep drastic difference between what was PRODded, which should not have been PRODded in the first place, and the current article, which is clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 29 May 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 03:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points, Union County, Indiana

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

One of a number of five-way intersections in the area/state, I couldn't find anything that specifically related to this one, though I found several references to one which were definitely not this one. There's also a Five Point Creek which attracts hits. As it is, there is one house at the intersection which judging from the style probably dates from the early 1900s, but that's it. No evidence I can see that this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Only need to look at who the creator is – no need to spend any more time on this than he did on mass-produced falsehoods. Reywas92^Talk 05:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - haven't we already submitted at least 30 deletion requests of these non-notable settlements in Indiana? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By my count I've submitted 212 so far. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still find that mindblowing ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2025 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Hill, Blackburn with Darwen

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

Run-of-the-mill suburb with no indication of notability. Database source only. Could redirect to Blackburn. — Moriwen (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: needs work but it meets the criteria of WP:GEOLAND (it has been a matter of debate in the past whether UK electoral wards fit the "officially recognised place" criterion, but in this case couple it with plenty of historic and contemporary coverage and I think it clearly meets the other criteria anyway). I think that under WP:ENGPLACE it should probably be moved to Mill Hill, Lancashire? Joe D (t) 16:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NPLACE, it is also considered a "built-up" area. (the rough UK version of a CDP). Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:29, 2 June 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbali Coastal Forest

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

I am not sure this is notable, and even if so, this is primarily AI slop that needs WP:TNTing. GoldRomean (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree, there is very little mention in the literature and overall the article is not encyclopedic. --hroest 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought there would be something there in a BEFORE search but this appears to be a resort and estate of some kind that doesn't seem to have the sources to support it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 21 May 2025 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rynek, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot. Name means simply "Market" (or "market square"). In reality, as the Polish article states, the map shows, and Teryt confirms, this is not a settlement but just a part (i.e., część, and not necessarily a populated part) of the village of Brzezówka. Happy to redirect as an ATD. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see a redirecting here given that there are probably multiple potential targets for a "market". Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Right. If you say “I am going to ‘Rynek’” in most Polish cities and towns it will be understood as meaning that you are going to the town square. For this reason redirecting isn’t warranted. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It still has an article on pl wiki. I suggest redirecting to the village that the pl article claims this is a part of, Brzezówka, Lesser Poland Voivodeship. If you look at pl:Brzezówka (województwo małopolskie) you'll see it has seven such parts, whatever they are (for a village). Maybe @Malarz.pl can comment or ping some other Polish Wikipedians who know more about Polish geography topics, I keep forgetting who is active in this topic area.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDK Piotrus, the target isn't mentioned there and just how many "Ryneks" are there in the Lesser Poland Voivodeship? Hundreds surely? Most prominently the main square (Rynek Główny) in Krakow? We don't have to redirect just because there is a PL wiki article. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an entry in TERYT (with SIMC 0830575). There is also an article in the Polish wikipedia. Kiwipete (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TERYT, similar to GNIS for the US, contains entries for many things that are not populated settlements (including farms, railway sidings, warehouses etc.). TERYT lists this as a "part" (część) of Brzezówka, not as a settlement, which is also exactly what the PL Wiki article says it is. Rynek is what you call the typical market-square of any Polish town or city. It is therefore not a populated settlement according to GEOLAND: it is apparently just the centre/market of Brzezówka. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, evidently a generic term that could apply to any community in LPV and so a redirect is inapt. JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2025 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wimp, California

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:NGEO. Doing a WP:BEFORE search only brought up searches fearing the word "Wimp" as in "Coward". I'm quite skeptical if this is even a place or is just flat out WP:MADEUP. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly looks like a made up term. Cannot locate anything in reliable sources to verify. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be just a rail point, not appearing on any map until 1966: [7], and disappearing after 2018. Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. Nothing found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2025 (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.

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination by blocked sock. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naukatola Raxaul

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

Fails to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article contains only basic geographical details and minor local infrastructure (e.g., one school), with sources that are either directory-style or not considered reliable (e.g., Wikivoyage). Bleeng (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bleeng (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does the place exist at all? Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. ... per WP:NPLACE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2025 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalvøya, Bærum

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

Can’t find any reliable secondary sources covering this city. Not entirely sure where to redirect it since the Bærum article doesn’t mention it ApexParagon (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Norway, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Sandvika (a part of Bærum), where it is mentioned.Ingratis (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC) see below[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this even a correct nomination? It's not a city, it's an island which easily passes WP:GEONATURAL. SportingFlyer T·C 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that I've added references. Ingratis (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2025 (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.

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 is that this and similar lists should be kept but that they do likely need cleanup. Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers

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

No indication that this meets WP:NLIST, not clear that any other reliable source has paid attention to a grouping of these different levels of politicial entities, seems rather random. Also seems in many parts incorrect, many of these are apparently neither continents, countries, nor first level subdivisions (e.g. Røsvatnet or Gil Island (Canada) or Replot). Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists. Deleting this will just leave a hole of this size in the middle of the lists into which it is transcluded. Of course, listing of geographic features by size is very well-established, and this specific division is just a convenient subset of the entire list. With respect to the concern that there are items on the list that should not be there, feel free to remove those. There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities. There are more than enough countries and first level subdivisions to fill up the list. BD2412 T 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists." No, this is an article. Whether another list transcludes this or not is an issue for that list, not for AfD. This article here and now is directly readable by readers, it is categorized, it should meet our criteria for an article. "listing of geographic features by size is very well-established" across some randomly decided characteristics? I don't think so. A list of countries by size is not a problem and wouldn't be at AfD, what is at AfD (and can't be helped by cleanup) is this combination of (officially) continents, countries, and "first level subdivisions", and (in practice) everything else that someone wants to add (and that apparently not only pollutes not just this page then, but also all these other pages this is transcluded onto). Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention? Fram (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  My understanding is that article splits made on the basis of size do not incur extra responsibility on the resultant pages that the splitting points themselves be based on WP:N. That is to say, if we have a List of bumberchute pratfalls, and it is split into List of bumberchute pratfalls (1700–1900) and List of bumberchute pratfalls (1900–present), this does not ipso facto create a new requirement that we find a bunch of historians who specifically divide bumberchute pratfalls into a pre-1900 and post-1900 era. jp×g 🗯️ 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Your reply has nothing to do with my comment it seems, which was not about where to split (or even to split at all): "Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention?" The three levels are "continents, countries, and first level subdivisions" from all over the world, and no matter how large or small. Fram (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities That seems to be the case for a substantial amount of this list, though, there are a lot of Canadian islands here, and the two lists below have nearly 300 Scottish islands. These lists could be more meaningful if they don't attempt to – yet obviously fail badly – be so comprehensive. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: If there is not an objection to listing countries and their states/provinces, then removing the smaller islands is a cleanup task. The larger islands tend to be their own administrative divisions. BD2412 T 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe this meets the criteria for a speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP is not a speedy keep criterion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can read it as a "strong keep", then, but if a subset of a an uncontested series of lists is deleted because that subset is deemed not individually notable, then it would pretty much automatically be merged up to the larger list, which has not been nominated for deletion here. That would just be clean up and merge. BD2412 T 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added these two because their Prod was removed, and for the same reasons. Fram (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all). This is such a random WP:CROSSCAT of things, that it's difficult to tell what should even be included or excluded. I see some silly micronation on the small end, as well as a department of France, which appears to be second-level, not first, along with random islands and full nations. Why are such things combined together? It's even bad enough if you try to restrict to only first-level subdivisions, as these are rather different entities from nation to nation. This is exactly the sort of dreck that NLIST, CROSSCAT, etc., should be used to weed out. And make no mistake, there's nothing all that special about sorting by area. We could also do it by population, by number of roads, or total jellybean exports. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have such lists for population or jellybean exports because those are far less stable. If they were unchanging, it would make sense to have lists. BD2412 T 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so replace population and jellybean exports by highest and lowest elevation, number of lakes, or whatever and the point remains. Those would be stable, yet no reasonable person would argue we should have those. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, IP, we do have:

Of course, those lists overlap in a way area lists don't because the highest point in a county can also happen to be the highest point in a country, but there is no reason we couldn't have a list of highest points by first-level administrative subdivision worldwide. BD2412 T 14:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly don't see the difference between those tightly focused lists of "one geographic characteristic for one clearly delineated, closely related group, e.g. "Swiss cantons"" vs. "one geographic characteristic for three clearly different groups lumped together in one list"? Fram (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be impermissible to have a single list of highest points by administrative division for all administrative divisions on Earth? BD2412 T 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Do you have any idea at all how many "administrative divisions" there are on Earth? How many of these don't even have an article, or have no reliable sources beyond a census result? Never mind "impermissible", let's go with plain "impossible", "impractical" and "totally useless". Why would you want to compare the highest point of municipalities in Denmark to the highest point of parishes in Antigua? Perhaps stick to the discussion on hand and not drag in even worse ideas. Fram (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no law that ties us to an "all-or-nothing" approach. We could absolutely have a list limited to the highest points in all of the top-level administrative divisions (e.g., states and provinces, or the equivalents in other countries). I'm not making that list, but that is the intent with the lists at issue here, with basically a handful of the largest geographic features included for comparison as well. BD2412 T 13:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going on about? You posted a question about a list "for all administrative divisions", your words. I replied to your post. Instead of leaving it at that or engaging with my answer in the context of your question, you now act as if I am unreasonable to start about "all-or-nothing", when you were the one to bring this up for some unexplicable reason. You seem to have a very hard time engaging with what is actually being said, instead going off on tangents, strawmen, or other irrelevant stuff. Why? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike your personal comments about me. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a Twitter-style cage match. I was clarifying my position, which was in reference to the types of lists of heights of administrative divisions that we already have, and as I provided above. I intentionally excluded things like List of tallest mountains in the Solar System, for exactly this reason. BD2412 T 14:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to strike there, and you only make things worse: "I intentionally excluded things like List of tallest mountains in the Solar System, for exactly this reason." ??? The only time that list was mentioned, was when you included it in the above long list of things we do have. If you want to use the "we are a collaborative project" trump card, then perhaps don't continue to post stuff which is barely distinguishable from troll-posting and gaslighting. It really is impossible at the moment to have an adult, reasonable conversation with you when you keep pretending to have said "A" when you actually said "Z" or "not-A". Fram (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to respond vitriolically to everything I say? I would ask you to please reflect on what is beneficial to the discussion, and govern yourself accordingly. There can be no communication absent a modicum of respect. BD2412 T 14:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel absolutely no respect from you in this discussion, I have explained why your posts are extremely problematic. There is no way to meaningfully engage with your above posts which make claims which completely contradict or ignore your own earlier posts but pretend that they are logical followups. Fram (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the navigational purpose of list, limiting entries to those which have their own articles is a common approach which could solve the How many of these don't even have an article objection. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That quote was in reply to a suggestion to make a list for all administrative divisions on Earth. Nothing is really solved by only including those with an article. For example, random pick: France has about 35,000 communes (Communes of France). Fram (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would, actually. These are fine. jp×g 🗯️ 18:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in my opinion this is a really bad example of cross-categorisation, although the article(s) also transclude into List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all) and List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 0.1 to 1,000 square kilometers and the AfD templates appear to mess up the tables. There should be some discussion as to how to deal with these articles too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started this by noticing (and prodding) List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 1 square kilometer in the new pages overview. That page doesn't seem to be linked to from any other article at the moment, and had no attribution if it was copied from somewhere else either. No idea why this one doesn't get transcluded and some others do, also no idea whe the very small entities are listed here, and in the <50km² list, and in the overall list, and perhaps elsewhere as well: it's a complete mess I guess, and transcluding articles into other articles is in general a bad idea. Anyway, these other articles have the same issues as the three up for deletion now, and should probably all be nominated for the same reasons. Does anyone have an overview of which articles we are talking about altogether? Fram (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, what a long list of pages with the same issues, how has this been allowed for so many years? Lists of political and geographic subdivisions by total area... Fram (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all)

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 0.1 to 1,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 1,000 to 3,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 1,000 to 5,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 10,000 to 20,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 100,000 to 1,000,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 100,000 to 200,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 20,000 to 30,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 20,000 to 50,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 200,000 to 500,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 250 to 1,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 3,000 to 5,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 30,000 to 50,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 5,000 to 20,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 5,000 to 7,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50,000 to 100,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50,000 to 200,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 500,000 to 1,000,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 7,000 to 10,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area in excess of 1,000,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area in excess of 200,000 square kilometers

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 1 square kilometer

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 50 square kilometers
There are also some redirects to these. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best as a second AfD once this one is finished, too many people have commented already and too much time has passed. Exact same reasons apply though. Fram (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. You can use Special:PrefixIndex to get an up to date list of these when making the next filing, since they seem to be in flux at the moment. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@REAL MOUSE IRL: Has anyone considered what this will look like if different nominations have different outcomes? If we end up with some of the lists kept, but with giant holes where entire countries are missing because they weren't in a size range that was kept? BD2412 T 14:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If some close as delete and others as no-consensus, I don't think it should be too controversial to re-nominate the remaining ones.

If the implication here is that you would still oppose deletion even with half of these gone, that doesn't make sense to me. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be operating under that assumption that a consensus for deletion will ultimately develop if the articles are renominated enough times. Historically, you are liable to be disappointed there. BD2412 T 15:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "how has this been allowed for so many years?" You might as well say that we have articles on every single U.S. president and ask how that has been allowed. This is allowed because dozens of Wikipedians have worked on putting these together over that time (some more than others). BD2412 T 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is allowed because dozens of Wikipedians have worked on putting these together over that time" Well, that's that settled then, thanks for pointing to that policy, and that very apt comparison you make with "articles on every single US president". Can't argue with that kind of logic! Fram (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep This specific list, as has been said, is just a spin-out of a larger list of lists. It makes no sense to me to discuss this alone without considering this overall.
- If this is supposed to be a discussion on this whole type of lists, my opinion is keep: The lists have a lot of issues, and I think the scope should be reexamined and inclusion criterea clearly defined. E.g. should geographic and political be separated? Should geographic be included at all? Within political, should we stick to first level administrative country subdivisions to delinate it from its partner list, List of countries and dependencies by area? But these are questions best suited for the talk page(s), not a deletion discussion. Likewise there may be wrong inclusions and missing entries, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.

WP:NLIST is the more serious issue. But first of all that guideline says: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I do think that these lists fulfill an informational and navigational purpose, helpful in browsing this specific area of geography. Aside from that, while I did not see lists constructed exactly like this one in secondary sources, the overal topic does get coverage: Statistics for subdivisions of individual countries abound. But we also have these lists by statoids.com putting together inter-country comparisons. The CIA World Factbook gives a list of first-level administrative divisions of all countries, although no areas. GADM presumably has all the stats, but I can't say at this point in what form. And the academic publication Administrative Subdivisions of Countries has all the areas for all the political first-level sub-divisions in one place (and more info), it simply is sorted by country first, rather than by area. (If we wanted to, the lists could be restructured to be sortable by country, giving exactly the format in Administrative Subdivisions, but in addition providing the current sorting by area. - The beauty of Wikipedia being able to provide a sortable table, which a book cannot.)

Lastly, if there should emerge consensus not to keep these articles despite the sources, still WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered. List of countries and dependencies by area and List of administrative divisions by country are closely related topics, and splitting and merging content should then be considered, with redirects WP:PRESERVEing the current content in case the issues can be resolved more satisfactorily in the future. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What contents here are not already available in other lists? We have lists of countries by area, List of first-level administrative divisions by area, ... Nothing is lost if these lists are deleted, nothing needs to be "split and merged", and thus no redirect (which wouldn't work anyway, as it would need to redirect to multiple pages at once) is needed. Fram (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, thanks, that was the other related list I could not find any more momentarily. That list in practice only considers the larger political subdivisions, while not making this clear. So for navigational and informational purposes it's less useful and comprehensive. Otherwise the List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all) and List of first-level administrative divisions by area could be merged together after a proper discussion on the inclusion critereon. Pinging @Clarityfiend, Elli, JPxG, Pontificalibus, Earl Andrew, James Ker-Lindsay, and Necrothesp:, participants in that list's deletion discussion, as they possibly might be interested in this one here. Daranios (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The implicit assumption of the nomination is that no one wants to be able to compare the sizes of different kinds of entities. For example, that no one wants to be able to look at a list to see whether Siberia (an administrative division) is bigger than Europe (a continent), which in fact it is; or to see which country is closest in size to California, which as it turns out, is midway between Iraq and Paraguay. I'm all for refining the lists to avoid including a ton of islands, but alternatives to deletion should absolutely be considered. BD2412 T 16:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Western Australia is slightly larger than the Mediterranean Sea, which is slightly larger than Central America, which is slightly larger than Algeria? Really, this could be a featured list. BD2412 T 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find all of this very fascinating. What I can say from secondary sources is that Administrative Subdivisions naturally includes the data of countries together with those of their subdivisions for comparison. Also size-wise including them would be no problem. And this is another distinction between the lists in question here and List of first-level administrative divisions by area in its current form. Daranios (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What I can say from secondary sources is that Administrative Subdivisions naturally includes the data of countries together with those of their subdivisions for comparison." Within the same country? Yes, we do that on enwiki as well, and such lists are not up for deletion. But lists which compare the size of the different cantons of Switzerland with the size of different countries? Unlikely... Fram (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The data is there to check out in one place, in one work, but not sorted by area. About the beauty of sortability on Wikipedia and the LISTN question in general, please see my comments above. Daranios (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, and the problem of where to target the redirect, if it came to that, would be a minor one: we could decide on the most closely related topic, which would presumably include links to the other related topics under at least under "See also" anyway. Daranios (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely per BD2412. I do not object to the nominator's claim that the page needs some cleanup, but I do object to the idea that splitting an article creates new requirements for the endpoints of each resultant article. I made a split like this once, which created List of elections before 1701 and List of elections, 1701–1800: the split doesn't require me to find corroborating historiography that say something special happened in the development of electoral politics in 1701. jp×g 🗯️ 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly the reason for this nomination though. The basic structure of the list, comparing sizes of countries, continents, and subdivisions of countries, is basically only done (outside Wikipedia) for some large entities, usually comparing a US state to a country or vice versa. Probably not a single reliable source so far has compared (or even compiled together) e.g. the cantons of Luxembourg with the municipalities of the Northern Marianas and the parishes of Dominica. A "list of elections" is one clearly defined group, which has only been split for reasons of size. Here we have completely disparate groups thrown together because, well, all I see is "I like it" and "it's useful" arguments, with the latter being rather dubious for those thousands of small entities. We can imagine thousands of lists that some people might find interesting, yet such lists get deleted all the time if they have not been treated as a group in reliable sources or present a clear, simple navigational aid. These lists are neither. Fram (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. These sorts of comparisons are commonplace and well known - sources ask What Countries In Europe Will Fit Inside Texas?, or compare the size of Ireland to the size of West Virginia and Indiana. If all the islands are all removed from the lists, as suggested, then the lists nominated here could be merged into a single one. I would support that merge as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparisons of size (or economy, or population) of countries vs. US states are quite common. Comparisons between most entries on List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers seem to be nonexistent. No one ever cared that Elba, Mersch (canton) and South Dublin are nearly the same size. Fram (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have already agreed that islands that are not their own administrative subdivision should not be included in these lists, and South Dublin, not being a top-level administrative subdivision, should be removed as well. That is a cleanup task, not a cause for deletion of the entire world. BD2412 T 13:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Missing the point again. I'll change it to "No one ever cared that Yerevan, Mersch (canton) and San Juan–Laventille are nearly the same size." if that helps you. Fram (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you suggest that List of first-level administrative divisions by area should not exist, then? Surely no one has ever demonstrably cared if Hormozgan province, North Kalimantan, and Morogoro Region are nearly the same size. If not, what is the distinction? BD2412 T 14:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it should exist. I note that it has a clear cut-off of 75,000 km², so all these small to very small, barely known administrative divisions (outside their own country, and with exceptions of course) are at least not included. Even then, I doubt many sources and people are interested to know whether Bahia is larger or smaller than Khanty-Mansi. It looks as if all sources are about one country only, none about the cross-country comparison. But the lists at AFD now are in any case a lot worse (apart from cleanup aspect), for mixing multiple levels and including much more obscure, small to very small administrative divisions which will have appeared much less often in comparisons (I can imagine people writing things like "Hokkaido, which is about the size of South Carolina" or vice versa: like I said, I can not imagine anyone (or certainly not any reliable source) saying anything like "Mersch, which is about the size of San Juan-Laventille", so why should we be making that comparison? Fram (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth there seems to be some interest in comparing smaller entities of different countries, like in this article comparing London, Madrid, Paris, Manhattan. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are obvious exceptions, and not all of them even first-level divisions so not included in these articles anyway. Fram (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting into details here, but those four are currently included in the lists. To my understanding, London, Madrid, Paris are first-level administrative divisions, while Manhattan is a geographic feature included because of its high relevance (presumably extremely well-known across the globe). Daranios (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paris is a second-level division, the first level would be Île-de-France. For London, the first level is Greater London, but this one is complex. Madrid as well is second-level, first level is Community of Madrid, more than 10 times as large as Madrid. Fram (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I stand corrected on that point. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitrary cut-off of 75,000 km² means that numerous entire countries are excluded, as are well-known U.S. states like Massachusetts and New Jersey and Rhode Island (see, e.g., "29 Countries Smaller Than Rhode Island" as evidence of interest in comparisons there), and Canadian provinces like Nova Scotia. The list contains the Australian state of New South Wales, but doesn't even include actual Wales (see "The Size of Wales", stating that "Montenegro, Beirut and Cyprus are half the size of Wales, while Arizona is 14 times bigger and Sicily is a very-specific 'one and a quarter times the size'..."). BD2412 T 16:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a List of first-level administrative divisions by area, all countries are excluded, not just some. That second source is a completely unreliable blog, with claims like Beirut (size at most 35 km²) is "half the size" of Wales (more than 20,000 km²)... Not sure what your actual point is in using such dubious arguments to slag off this list which is not up for AfD but which you brought up anyway. Fram (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to determine what principle would exclude lists of comparisons below a certain size, or between certain kinds of entities. The blog is not cited as a source, merely for the proposition that people make these sorts of comparisons between different levels of entities. Your own observation about the size of Wales demonstrates that readers would benefit from being able to evaluate claims like that one, or this claim about the size of Texas. BD2412 T 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers can evaluate this quite easily: in general, when you want to compare two things, you open the two articles. That's how I did it, it really isn't hard. We have to put cutoffs somewhere in any case, in the lists up at AfD the cutoff is "first-level", you don't include second-level ones even though some of these are much bigger and much better known than 90% of the ones that are actually included. The combination of the three levels now included is completely arbitrary. Fram (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the lists is to include countries (past and present), first-level administrative divisions, a handful of exceptional or remarkable second-level administrative divisions (there are a few counties in the U.S., for example, that are noted for being larger than many U.S. States and other countries in the world), some prominent multi-country or multi-state entities, and a handful of geographic features such as oceans and large seas. Everything else should be removed, which is a cleanup task. I am certainly open to codifying limitations on subjects for inclusion, if anyone wants to engage in that process. BD2412 T 17:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that not arbitrary? Fram (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As JPxG has pointed out, it is entirely permissible within Wikipedia to have arbitrary cutoffs and delineations. In fact, the encyclopedia is chock full of them. Debating which cutoffs points or principles are reasonable is a separate discussion from debating whether they should exist. BD2412 T 18:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So to recap, you bring up a different list for to comment on, make it an issue that it uses an arbitrary cutoff because that excludes things which are out of scope anyway, only to now argue that an arbitrary cutoff is no problem. Fine, I´m really confused what your actual point was on starting this side discussion about that other list. That having a much more clearly delineated list with many well-known entries (plus some lesser known ones for the average English speaking person, and missing some other well known entities) is somehow a reason to keep articles with many, many more rather unknown entries for enwiki readers, and with more mixed criteria? Fram (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it exactly. BD2412 T 19:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another list based on a non-notable concept. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge them all together into one page. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a comprehensive list that is SPLIT, I don't actually see a deletion rationale here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. This is what Wikipedia exists for. Convinced by sources in this discussion that people do make just these comparisons. Need not show that every possible thing is compared with every other to seek to list comprehensively. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would add that WP:NOTPAPER is of relevance here as well. Wikipedia can contain things nobody before had space for. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2025 (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.

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. This list has transformed significantly since nomination and I see the NOTDATABASE concerns as addressed. There is no consensus in favor of the argument that the notability criteria are not met. In future I strongly recommend against nominating articles while they are still tagged as "under construction", "in use", and being actively edited. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck diving sites of Cape Town

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

Article subject appears to be not notable. Refer to policy WP:NOTDATABASE: simply listing a group of related items is generally discouraged. Although WP contains many list-type articles, there is no consensus for the notability "List of diving sites of XXX" articles. In any case, WP:GNG policy requires multiple independent sources that discuss the list AS A GROUP. Noleander (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Azuredivay (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these are already listed at Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area#Named dive sites. While a list of shipwrecks in the region is certainly doable, I agree that a simple list of dive sites is too database-y. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been heavily edited since its nomination so I'm relisting it and hope that participants re-review it since the AFD was opened. Please do not move the article before the AFD is closed. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Shipwrecks of Cape Town, which implies a slight expansion of scope. Article was nominated prematurely while under construction (and is still under construction). Scope of existing content is appropriate for proposed rename, and has adequate references either already cited or potentially citeable to establish general notability. If anyone wonders why I did not just rename it to the better title, I did, but have been reverted because this AfD is still open. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "List of shipwrecks in the Western Cape" - I completely agree with renaming this. The article itself is pretty bad and needs a lot of cleanup, but it's a valid NLIST article if you look at the sourcing, especially the book which groups these topics together. NOTDATABASE also does not apply here, especially because this is not a simple list, but does provide context. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens more shipwrecks in the Western Cape, perhaps hundreds. I do not have anywhere near the same quality of sources for them at this stage so would recommend 'Shipwrecks of Cape Town' or 'Shipwrecks of Table Bay, Robben Island, the Cape Peninsula, and False Bay', as the preferred title. A conservative estimate for the article size when I have finished with current sources would be in the order of 140K and around 80 sections, which is big enough. Also there are differences in the reasons for shipwrecks occurring on this particular part of the coast compared to the rest of the Western Cape. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:12, 26 May 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yenne, Indiana

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

A crossroads with one farmstead which judging by the aerials has hardly changed in seventy years. So given that it's named after a postmaster, almost certainly just a 4th class post office. Searching produced lots of people named "Yenne" but nothing of substance. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Location did exist, as the article explains. Article is supported by valid sources. If someone ever searches for this location, it's reasonable to locate this article. There's no harm in keeping it, and no specific violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines to delete it. Truthanado (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see I will have to spell it out. As a rule, per WP:GEOLAND, only settlements get a pass on having to satisfy WP:GNG, which this place certainly does not: it's barely attested to, and by two sources which have problems. Of you will take a look at WP:GNIS, you can see the kind of problems with it that have caused us to disregard its "populated place" categorization as implying a settlement. In this case it's clear that the place was a 4th class post office, back before RFD, when people had to go and pick up their mail rather than having it delivered. We've found these in all sorts of places, and having it someone's house is quite common. That leaves us with Baker's place names origin book. After all this time in Indiana, it has become clear that when he says a place is a village, he's not very reliable about that.

As far as the "harm" is concerned, first off, the WP euphemism of "community" to describe these places is largely unsourceable. It is quite clear after years of dealing with hundreds of these that "populated place" cannot be taken to imply a town or a "community" because there are too many flat-out mistakes, never minding the whole post office thing. We've consistently held that these 4th class post offices aren't notable. "Community" doesn't mean anything concrete anyway. In a lot of cases we can find turn-of-the-century county histories which are generally pretty clear about places where there was an actual town or at least an attempt to have one. The problem in the large is that these articles were mass-created from GNIS without appreciation of its problems, and in some states (though not Indiana so much) the other sources such as place name books were misrepresented. "Community" seems to have been seized upon in an attempt to have people read these places as towns which satisfy GEOLAND without actually claiming that they were towns. So the issue is really about telling the truth about these places, because if truth were told, that many of these were just places to pick up mail, or places with passing sidings and perhaps a station stop on the railroad, or summer camps and resorts, they would be deleted because they don't satisfy GNG. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GNG, not more than a post office. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe's detailed argument on the available sourcing failing GEOLAND and GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a onetime post office, fails WP:GEOLAND without high-quality sources (a listing of post offices is no such thing), plus all the reasons nom listed. As for "no harm in keeping it", our articles are constantly being scraped for geolocations and to train AI, and keeping nonsense stubs like this is polluting these data with noise. I just typed "yenne indiana auto detailing" into Google and at the top of the list were two Yelp listings for auto detailing "near" Yenne, and only after consulting a map could you determine they were all 50+ miles away. We don't need to be enabling monetized garbage like this by keeping useless articles on nonexistent subjects. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2025 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tregaron Conservancy

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

There's a little weak sourcing, e.g. [8][9], but no great need for a separate article when this is covered in Tregaron Estate#History. A redirect there is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 22:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge new information into Tregaron Estate. I do not think a separate article is warranted, given with the overlap of this topic and its parent topic of the estate. Also, much of this article is a history of the estate it seems. I think a #conservancy section in the Estate article is warranted, along with merging the new information added here into the #history section of that same article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tregaron Estate is described as a "country house and estate," but the two the two were split with very practical consequences. It used to be one unified residence, now the land contains a school and a legally distinct park. Indeed, this bifurcation is noted in the introductory paragraph to the article on the estate ("Today the estate is occupied by a campus of the Washington International School and the Tregaron Conservancy.")

Tregaron Estate was originally part of Twin Oaks, but it would be inappropriate to merge because after the property was partitioned, the new parcel gained a new owner who put it to a new use. The same is true here where Tregaron Estate was partitioned into the buildings of the Washington International School and the parkland of the Conservancy.

This bifurcation has been similarly used where an estate with historical significance (Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial) is treated separately than undeveloped space severed from the estate for a new purpose (Arlington National Cemetery), other examples include (Stoneleigh Park partitioned from Stoneleigh Abbey), (Knowsley Safari Park partitioned from Knowsley Hall), (Moor Park Golf Club distinct from Moor Park (house)), (Tredegar House Country Park distinct from Tredegar House).

Conversely, one article is appropriate where the buildings and grounds were never split and remain under joint use for one purpose (an apt example is Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens the estate Post bought after moving out of Tregaron when she and Davies split).

As a practical matter, it's important to distinguish the conservancy, which is a park open to the public, from the estate as a whole which includes substantial areas of private property owned by the Washington International School to which visitors are expressly not welcome.

The articles should remain distinct because Tregaron's story since 1980 has been one of bifurcation for distinct uses by different owners. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm developing material on the post Davies era of Tregaron, covering the contentious inheritance and sale, development efforts, community response, and eventual protection. Please delay deletion. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the recent edits make the case, though I need to clean them up since I wanted to get something up here quickly. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While once a portion of the estate, the parcel has been a separate entity (the other a part of the school which has it's own article), since 1980. The history section conveys how the conservancy came to be. Sourcing is satisfactory.Djflem (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The conservancy is distinct from the estate or school. The history section is now more robust than the estate article, but specifically relates to the conservancy, not the school or estate. The sourcing is now substantially better than the estate article, which has merely one source, a National Register of Historic Places document that predates the conservancy. Furthermore, the article is indisputably notable and distinct from the estate article because it is about an extant 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There is absolutely no basis to merge that into an article about the estate. Randomnumbername (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more views now the article has been expanded and views trended away from redirecting to keeping outright.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's a fairly substantive article here now. I'm not convinced that merging would be inappropriate if someone were to really develop both articles, but am fine with leaving the articles as they are for the time being, as they do cover notably different stories. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:38, 22 May 2025 (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.

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 redirect‎ to List of communes of Luxembourg. The debate about redirecting vs deleting can be taken up as a new conversation, if desired. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of communes of Luxembourg by population

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just merge the images and redirect them. You don't have to start a discussion for something obvious like this unless someone objects. No need to delete the pages altogether either. Withdraw this and then follow WP:BOLD and WP:MERGEINIT. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, I'd merge the main list into Communes of Luxembourg too. But please do update the stats. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should have been a merge request, not an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I'm missing something, the rush to admonishment of this nominator for bringing this to AfD seems unfair. This does not pass WP:NLIST and there is no sense in merging the article into List of communes of Luxembourg because it is literally duplicitous and already covered. Sure, this probably could have been done without an AfD nom, but if editors have any doubt at all about performing a WP:BOLD delete/redirect, we absolutely should create a culture as a community which encourages them to instead come to AfD for consensus. I don't think the nominator did anything wrong. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my understanding is that the only way for non-admins to delete a page is to nominate it for deletion... Also, the thought of turning the pages into redirects had not crossed my mind. I supose I'll just do that. Procrastineur49 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect these lists to List of communes of Luxembourg. These lists do meet WP:NLIST but they're redundant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the nominator took action and changed this article to a Redirect despite they're being involved and this discussion still being open. I reverted that action and ask that no further action be taken until this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, ok either way. Really don’t see what’s terrible in having these, but if comparison can be made elsewhere, so be it. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is not having a clear consensus and seems to be leaning towards redirect. Kindly weigh in on redirect/keep/delete or other per policies to have a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the table on the main article can already be sorted by pop / pop density / etc. so this is basically a pure duplicate. A redirect would be fine as well, but slightly favor delete bc if the nominated article was a draft received at AfC I think a reasonable reviewer could decline on the grounds of 'already exists'. Zzz plant (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there is no reason to retain these as redirects. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of communes of Luxembourg – I disagree with others above that a redirect isn't needed. This page gets 500–600 views a month [10] and 133 incoming links [11]. This page has also existed since 2006, so it is probably linked plenty offwiki, too. Redirects are cheap, and in this case there's a chance they'll help someone. Toadspike [Talk] 09:20, 29 May 2025 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tannery Garden, Basirhat

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

WP:GEOLAND only presumes notability for the legally recognized city of Basirhat, not the informally defined Tannery Garden neighborhood. Citing the Bharat Sevashram Sangha website's listing of its address cannot support the claim that the area is famous for that group's presence. Listing the post office pin code does not establish notability because all sufficiently small areas have a single postal code. The Basirhat Police website failed to load, but it seems to only establish the neighborhood's existence, rather than providing significant coverage of the neighborhood as a distinct entity. The claimed 2025 population and literacy rate are made without citation, which is particularly confusing because the 2025 census of India remains indefinitely postponed, while the 2011 census of India only measured Basirhat as a whole, not at the neighborhood level. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 05:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 28 May 2025 (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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pisgah, Indiana

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

There's nothing there, and sources consistently characterize this as a post office. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However it is not clear to me if this is legally recognized according to WP:GEOLAND which is what my argument is based on. Czarking0 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go read WP:GNIS. We have not taken listing in these official gazetteers as legal recognition for a long time, and in any case, GNIS in particular has proven to be fairly error-prone. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: weak keep - might have historical significance. e.g. see this [[12]] Asteramellus (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The story is at least untrue to the extent that this Mt. Pisgah is nowhere near the military base; it's over 150 miles away in a different corner of the state. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this ever was a community in the sense required by GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was more than a post office at Mt. Pisgah. According to Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, April 9, 1921 Page 6 there was a general mercantile store there that sold coffee for the desperate. It is mentioned as a "place" in Hoosier Folklore Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jun., 1943), pp. 14-16. ([13]). So there's a hint that there's more than a post office, but evidence is shy that it was a community. Maddening. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The comment I'm left with as a closer is "So there's a hint that there's more than a post office, but evidence is shy that it was a community"...so where does that leave us as a consensus of editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The most common ATD in similar cases would be a redirect to the local township. In this case Milford Township, LaGrange County, Indiana. But IMO,sources remain too thin for even that. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this one, as is usually the case, is that the township article either doesn't mention the place or more typically claims it is an "unincorporated community", i.e., a settlement, when the whole rationale for the deletion discussion is that it is no such thing. If we were going to apply GNG to these, then yes, I would say roll them up into the parent township; but as it stands, these redirects are just an invitation to a subsequent RfD to get rid of them. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only a post office. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have clear evidence that this meets GEOLAND and a lot of evidence that it is merely a post office. JoelleJay (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This wp:GEOLAND fails significant coverage, and most of the details here aren’t verifiable Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:26, 29 May 2025 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Park-Warden Woods, Toronto

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

I don't think this neighbourhood exists; none of the sources cited mention it and I can't find anything else online. There is a Birchmount Park and a Warden Woods, but they are not a thing together. Nominating for AfD since there's a contested PROD, but fairly certain this is a neologism. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-existant neighborhood. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these appear to be adjacent areas covered in a single article. Perhaps a split is in order. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One appears to be a shopping mall and the other a park. I'm not sure if either is notable and the sources here appear to be all primary. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
split into two articles, both are notable geographical areas that have coverage but there is no precedence to have them together in one article. --hroest 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting this article would mean creating two stubs with only primary sources. Why not just create both articles now if the sources exist? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scarborough, Ontario. Seems more relevant there than a stand alone article. Not seeing why this residential area is notable. Seems like general information and sourcing is not significant. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A merge makes no sense based on the sources we have, which are two photos for sale on Getty Images, a permanent dead link, a city council resolution about a frickin' bus shelter which does not verify the claim it is cited for whatsoever, and two pieces about a house that happens to be nearby (to this nonexistent, synthesized area). Toadspike [Talk] 21:55, 1 June 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanni forest

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

Article is about forests in the Vanni region without specific mention of a named forest. Sources are either links to sat images or references that does not deal with a location called the "Vanni forest" and the page Natural forests in Sri Lanka already exists. -UtoD 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Move to Forests in Vanni. perhaps Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't know what to do with this one. "Vanni forest" brings up a number of hits in books, though the one that looked the best is a reverse COPYVIO of this article! I'm nervous about deleting because it's very possible I'm getting this wrong, but there's no clear sources which show this to be a viable topic in English. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in hopes of generating a bit more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find in-depth, independent, reliable sources discussing a Vanni forest in Sri Lanka. The region is definitely forested, but there doesn't seem to be a discussion of the forest + what makes it unique. Most sources, like this article, are about the wider region and the people that live there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2025 (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.

Geography-related proposed deletions