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

Antiville, Indiana

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubbard, Indiana (2nd nomination); overstated existance by GNIS and is unnotable. Roasted (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Roasted (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just like the Hubbard discussion, nothing more than a rail point. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avonburg, Indiana

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

Yet another nothing there place about which I can find nothing except a soil series which might not even refer to this place. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non existent rail point. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch, Switzerland County, Indiana

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

This appears to be a short-lived 4th class post office named after a Methodist church which was almost half a mile north of the intersection, more or less across from its cemetery, which is still there. The church appears to have been torn down around 2005, but it is shown on older topos and can be plainly seen on aerials. County histories refer to the church but make no mention of a town, and there's nothing significant at the intersection. No evidence that this was an actual settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 31 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)} 08:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries receiving snowfall

AfDs for this article:

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

There is enough difference in this as compared to what was deleted in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries receiving snowfall (2nd nomination). However, the same arguments apply here. Mainly it falls afoul of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As well it's unsourced and the "All elevations" section contains places that are not countries and it never snows in the United States. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a better review of the previously deleted list. That one was somewhat more complete than this. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a total lack of sourcing (for a topic where it should be fairly easy to find sources). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's worth pointing out that the second nomination in 2007 fully acknowledged from the start (even before the resulting deletion) that, even then, standards were tighter than at the time of the first nomination in 2005 (and that assertment was actually in reference to the qualify of AfD/VfD discussions). Our inclusion standards now, of course, are much more stringent 18 years later, to a greater extent than any tightening between 2005 and 2007. A failure of WP:INDISCRIMINATE then certainly isn't going to make the cut in 2025. (And any unsourced list that implies that the United States are not a country but Alaska is does not seem like anything worth retaining in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NLIST and WP:OR (i.e. by altitude—where is that coming from?). The only thing close to this is countries with the most snowfall. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate is just the word. Athel cb (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - let's quote the words from the 2007 AFD, which describe the article state perfectly.

"WP:NOT#IINFO; snow falls in lots of countries, that doesn't mean a list of those countries is encyclopedic. What next, List of countries receiving rainfall?". Masaruemoto, 2007. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as the topic lacks the requirements to be included in the Wikispace.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with a lot of what has been said before, this is incredibly niche and gets into the question of what happens if we allow for things like this to be commonplace. Also, there are no sources indicating that this topic in particular is even notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addams (crater)

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

Seems to fail WP:NATFEAT. There's not much information discussing it outside of its coordinates and various statistics such as depth and size. I don't believe it simply being on Venus makes it any more special or notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Geography. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of craters on Venus, and do the same with the rest of the stubs in Category:Impact craters on Venus. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of craters on Venus with the rest of the category, as the list contains pretty much all the sourced content on each. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm finding mentions in papers due to the crater's extended ejecta blanket, including one dedicated article.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow up, this crater is also discussed in several books on the topic of Venus.[2][3][4] It appears to be fairly iconic for that reason. Praemonitus (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Praemonitus. Ryan shell (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:25, 6 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Shabiya

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

A search for "Emirate of Shabiya" (including alternate spellings) yields almost no results. The article appears to be a synthesis of scattered historical claims, creatively assembled to portray a continuous political entity under that name. It includes a few citations, but the sources I checked do not verify the claims or support the existence of a sovereign emirate. Some don’t even mention the word "emirate." Mercier refers to the Chabbiïn/Chabbîa as religious leaders of a tribal faction who established a "veritable kingdom" near Kairouan, but this seems to be a figurative description of regional dominance rather than evidence of a recognized political state. Mooonswimmer 01:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Geography, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also couldn't find any proof that this emirate actually existed. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 04:20, 4 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by raspberries production

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

There is an nearly infinite number of lists, many of which do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This lump of trivia is one such. TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Geography, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NLIST, not covered as such. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Valid topic that is among the many at Template:Agriculture country lists, but new article by new user is not ready for mainspace. Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it is (likely) a valid topic, but the article itself isn't ripe for mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I had not noticed, but as it stands this is actually a list by year of raspberry production in Russia. But if it was ranked list of raspberry producing countries it does not need an artcle since the information is already included in the article on raspberries. So not even worth a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Notable topic but the article is not currently ready for mainspace. Orientls (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there anything that could be added which isn't already at Raspberry#Production? Dream Focus 03:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this were formatted like other similar articles. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify just as notable as the other variants in the template navigation bar at the end of the article, but with only one country, it is not a list of countries (yet). I disagree that it's in conflict with Raspberry#Production because that one only lists the top 5 countries of one year. The other separate articles are far more detailed with many more countries and not limited to just one year. Once more countries are added, it can be moved to article space and linked under Raspberry#Production as a main article, like is done for example with Pear#Production. Punkt64 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. This isn't necessarily an invalid topic for a list in principle if it were complete, but a list of just one country isn't a list we need to keep — especially if it's so badly formatted that the table is flying off far past the page margins into scroll-right territory, which tables should never, ever do. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Clearly this is not yet a list because it contains only one entry but it has the potential to become a list of valid interest. Spideog (talk) 19:48, 4 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.

West Grove, Indiana

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

Another visit to the 1876 state atlas, and again, you know there's nothing there, except that in this case the topos show the "West Grove Cemetery". And what I'm finding in searching is that hits are mostly for a Quaker meeting which was apparently here. But I'm not getting anything else, so this seems to have been an isolated meeting house. Mangoe (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several documents state there was a Quaker Friends Monthly Meeting building and cemetery here, as well as a school (p. 238). This book (p.188) mentions a person living in West Grove. --Magnolia677 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne, Indiana

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

An obvious former rail spot, now one of the places you can park to access the trail that replaced the old train line. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name makes it hard to find info, but it's pretty clear from maps this was nothing more than a rail point, fails WP:GEOLAND. Clearly not and never was a "community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as one reliable source in 8.93 years does not Wikipedia:Notability meet nor an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only a former rail point. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:10, 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 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 23:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Richmond, Indiana

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

This needs much better documentation than our friend the 1876 atlas, especially since there is no obvious feature on the topos to which it can be attached. Possibly it was a rail point; possibly it just means "the south part of Richmond", which is what I'm getting from GHits. But I'm not finding any clear sign of a separate town. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 27 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)} 17:15, 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. ✗plicit 12:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiser, Indiana

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

I'm getting a number of these Indiana places where there's little or nothing there, and where I'm just not coming up with anything. Based on the location I'm guessing that it was a 4th class post office, although there are rails nearby as well. At any rate, what I do get besides all the usual junk is last name hits. I just can't see keeping this. Mangoe (talk) 11:09, 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) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can prod these too, this editor lazily mass-produced false articles. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a rural intersection. USGS topo maps show the intersection (with no buildings) with Hiser Station Road; the latter name suggests this may have been a flag stop on the nearby (now gone) railroad. Regardless, without more information this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Reywas92. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:19, 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 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[5], 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[6] is about Mole Hill, and source 7[7] 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: [8], 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.

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 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 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. 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.

Geography-related proposed deletions