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

Five Points, Switzerland County, Indiana

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

Another five-way intersection which this old map shows had a school and nothing much else. The school also shows up on the oldest topos but has sincve been replaced by a power substation. I get no indications that this was a town per se. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this was ever a community of any type; just a five-way intersection, which often get the name "five points" in the US since such intersections are rare. Fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing else beside the five-way intersection. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

Geography-related proposed deletions