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

Indo-Malaysia Ocean

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

Clearly LLM-generated. The described "Indo-Malaysia Ocean" is the Strait of Malacca plus some portion of the seas at its ends, unverifiable because the sources do not support the claims they cite, and several are to other Wikipedia articles. Article creator has been blocked for persistent creation of LLM-generated articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a {{db-hoax}}. The notion doesn't appear to exist anywhere else. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and I meant to add, The "Indo-Malaysia ocean" likely refers to the maritime areas shared by... (my emphasis) at the beginning of the lead is exactly what LLMs say when they are about to start hallucinating! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: a blatant WP:WINARS violation despite a previous warning on the discredited creator's talk page speaks for itself. Borgenland (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I think a similar check should be made on other articles they have created which have not so far been placed under an AFD. Borgenland (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Indonesia, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't jump too deeply into the hoax bit, but this is clearly not supported by the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source supports this supposed geographical entity. Zero results on Google Books. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Hungary-related articles

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

23 other pages

This discussion aims to continue the idea behind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, but to avoid trainwrecks in the process.

To give a short background: there was some level of consensus found in 2021-22 AfD discussions that the typical Index of X country article is inadequate. This is due to their obsolescence, poor maintenance, and lacking comprehension.

However, the failure of the Abkhazia et al AfD put a stop to this, as it was a trainwreck. Too many articles were nominated.

In the meantime, a few indices of this type were merged into outlines, or deleted, but the rest remain unaffected. Three years later, the situation is more or less the same.

The selection process for indices in this nomination took into account every content, and activity-based objection raised so far (of course, aside from those who want to keep all of them as is, hence the point of the discussion) in general, or in specific. This was the formula:

1. Abhkazia et al indices of countries with more than 100 000 citizens; so that the low activity cannot ever hope to provide even something approaching a wide preview.

2. out of that set, a further subset was determined based on the paucity of the content, quantiatively, and qualitatively (empty sections for letters other than Q, W, X, Y); this shows an unacceptably low level of care, and it's unlikely this will ever change, as this type of index has generally stagnated in the last 15+ years

To put it simply, these are the worst of the worst. I believe there is nothing salvageable to be found in the 24 nominated articles for deletion.

N.b. I haven't put up an AfD notice on the 23 other articles, at the time of nomination. I am going to do that now. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Asia, Syria, Yemen, Europe, Hungary, Oceania, Latin America, South America, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary collection. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geogarphy, Liberia, and Senegal. Dege31 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eh, they look like valid navigational pages that just need work - if these are the "worst of the worst" they're not that bad, really, even if they do need some work. The Index of X-related articles goes back to the early days of Wikipedia as a navigational link, so I'd prefer an RfC to try to figure out if these are still useful and how to make them useful, and then we can delete them after that if they're not, but at the moment these do look like they pass NLIST as valid navigational pages. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've needed 'some work' for 15+ years. They may be valid navigational pages, but the nominated ones are almost totally unmaintained. LISTPURP gives three main purposes: information, navigation, development. How do indices that have received minimal maintenance at best for 15+ years fulfill these purposes? Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds exactly like navigational content to me. Once they're finished, they need limited maintenance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're far from finished, is what I'm saying. Dege31 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason for deletion, that's a reason for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am claiming the required cleanup is (at the moment) realistically impossible! Dege31 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles. I do not believe alphabetical indexes like these are valid or useful navigational pages. They are typically incomplete, poorly maintained, and duplicate other pages, categories, and navboxes. Outlines like Outline of the Dominican Republic and navboxes like Template:Hungary topics are substantially more useful than alphabetical listings like this. We have a search bar, so I've always been confused what the point of pages like this was when there is no organization or context, just an alphabetical list of links. Any that are actually maintained or more comprehensive may be better off in relevant wikiprojects. Any that are organized by topic should be combined with the relevant outline. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

School of Geography, University of Leeds

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

No independent RS on the page. No reason to think this university department would have independent notability outwith of University of Leeds JMWt (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It does need independent sourcing, as there is little of that. However, this is a topic of the external link nav boxs at the bottom of the article. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Spring, Indiana

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

In every aerial, this looks like a single farm, and indeed the photo in the article features a sign calling the place "Tree Spring Farm". Searching without including the county gets a barrage a false hits from another Tree Spring and from chance juxtapositions; when I add the county, I get nothing. I think this was never anything more than this NN farm. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like just a farm, perhaps with an actual spring which may be the reason it was listed in GNIS. Anyway, without more reliable information this fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Clinton, Indiana

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

Here we have an object case of how Baker's idetification of places as "villages" cannot be relied upon. Going back into the 1950s on the topos and aerials, one can see right off that this was the south end of a large rail yard with a roundhouse. The yard was abandoned in two stages and by the 1990s the whole line had been abandoned. There was never a town here. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tighe, Indiana

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

Entered late into GNIS from a state highway map, this Federal Writer's Project write-up claims it was a mine and that "There is nothing else there." I found some other references to it as a mine, but nothing that said "town". Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a non notable mine, not a town. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needmore, Vermillion County, Indiana

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

I found a relatively recent (1990s) county history that affirms Baker's 1904 plat date, but I must remind everyone that drawing up a plat doesn't imply that it was ever carried through. What I see is a string of four houses, not particularly close to one another; to the east is a gravel pit or something of the like. I've not found anything that talks about the place, just the usual listings of place names. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to a new list (i.e. create List:Unincorporated communities in Indiana). Nothing really of note here. I guess the biggest hurdle would be to delete every single entry that is of similar substance in Category:Unincorporated communities in Vermillion County, Indiana Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a small plat that didn't go far. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have done some work on it, adding cites. It was a community with at least a grocery store, three saloons, and at least 31 houses, in the first decade of the 20th century. Had to track down the local paper. It developed to support the adjacent mine. It would be ironic if the very "Needmore" that generated the 1995 book title "From Needmore to Prosperity: Hoosier Place Names in Folklore and History", and which has come into discussion in many AfDs about Indiana places, got deleted. And I would support that outcome if it was merely a place name like Tamarack Grange, but this was a real community for at least some period of time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Baker lists no less than five Needmores, of which to be sure two he refers to other towns. But we can reconsider this one. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I tend to lean inclusionist, I've come to appreciate your work over time Mangoe, your nominations are always done after fair contemplation. (I usually only wade in when i think something can be rescued.) Just like you actually know there are multiple Needmores. When the book came out, the news reporting apparently settled on this Needmore as the titular one, I found these news reports in looking up this Needmore. Though I'm not sure Baker himself settled on this Needmore, he was more a collector than a sorter, and he just commented the most (a few lines more) on this one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Knox490 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the WP:HEY - nice work, now more clearly passes GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Akash Nanda

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

Not notable. Count Count (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is it a building? Gsearch seems to bring up a legal office. I don't see notability... I would have speedied this, for the whole one line of text it is. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as borderline gibberish. Whatever it is, there's no claim of notability anyway. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to note, for the record, that the creator attempted to short-circuit this discussion by moving the page into draftspace within a few hours of the initial nomination — I've reverted the move, since that's not how the AFD process works, but wanted it on the record. Individual law offices are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is not citing any WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing to establish notability here, and it can't just stay in draft form since I'm not seeing anything in a Google search that suggests any kind of salvageability. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Iron, Indiana

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

Mostly written by an IP editor back in 2007 right after the stub was created, this article is mostly based on, er, "local knowledge", which is to say, on the authority of that editor. I can confirm that the configuration of buildings in the triangle did change, and that's about it. Searching was not fruitful. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget To Highland Township, Vermillion County, Indiana #Geography where this is mentioned at target per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the claim is that the statement in the township article is incorrect, that won't do. Mangoe (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find were a few mentions (all trivial) of the Flat Iron Store that stood at the site, all in local news articles from 1943-50. That's not enough for WP:GNG, and even if it were, the place is always referred to as a country store and not a community. I don't think a redirect is helpful because a) this is an unlikely search term and b) we have nothing to say about the place in the township article, other than its name and coordinates. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koomapatti

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

IP contested PROD. Non-notable location. Article is entirely LLM-generated with no reliable sources. MidnightMayhem 17:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It exists [1], [2], this article badly needs a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of inconsistencies and fake info means this article needs to be deleted asap. 81.97.211.181 (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT - AI generated article, It is notable, but we cannot have AI have a prescence on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. It's an island, but it's inland. AI does stupid stuff like this. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many articles start out in really poor shape, but I think that this one can be improved, perhaps with census data. The media reports about alleged miracles don't support claims for the miracles, but they do show that the island has attracted attention. Perhaps someone could populate the fields in the infoboxes and add the most recent population figures from the Indian census. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in such bad AI shape, that it's easier to light the fuse (no pun intended) and start over by WP:TNT ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TNT. We need traceability from the text to the sources, and this starts us out with none. LLM crap needs to be erased, and humans need to start over. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Bullshit-bot drivel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. And ATG's BBD. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the article is so bad that the only thing salvable is the title, it’s time to call Edgar Montrose. Qwirkle (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT, its for the best to purge this AI slop. ngl "bullshit-bot drivel" sounds perfect to add to my vocabulary of terms to use when hating on ai mwwv ^converse∫_edits 21:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A village that has received extended coverage in reliable sources, as noted by Oaktree above. I rewrote the article, going back to how it was before the LLM summary was added by Manoj Vellingiri in this edit, adding a proper infobox and coordinates (which Wikidata already had), and using the later added references to generate my own prose. Not quite a TNT, there was a perfectly valid start in the history. (As noted in my edit summary, "island" appears to stem from a translation error—I can't read Tamil—in the headline of one of the sources and its URL.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir's edits and reworking of the page from before the AI was involved. Good save, and meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TNT does not apply as there was a non-LLM version in the history. (If I had my way, AI horseshit would qualify for revision deletion as grossly insulting to Wikipedia.)--Laun chba ller 02:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Yngvadottir. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved enough to merit keeping. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. Good job Yngvadottir! UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: @MidnightMayhem: nominated this article without looking into the edit history. As I am the creator of this article @MidnightMayhem: never put a message on my talk page about the problem in this article. I think it is not a best practice. At last @Yngvadottir: put a message on my talk page about all these happenings. Thanks @Yngvadottir: for considering me. Now it is not in my priority to add more info about this thing. Right Now it is a DC. GFW --Ranjithsiji (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State Route 778

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

There are no secondary sources that cover the topic significantly. It has been proposed by JackFromWisconsin that this article be merged into List of Ohio State Routes. I am fine with that. Easternsahara (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. May be notable as a state route per WP:GEOROAD (state and provincial highways are typically notable, admittedly much to my surprise too). S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline itself implies that there will be exceptions, this argument is not strong enough for an AfD. Easternsahara (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep preferred over merging. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - primary state routes are usually kept per WP:GEOROAD and WP:OUTCOMES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These two things that you cite say that they are usually notable, but this is certainly not the case here. Easternsahara (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Note that I am here because I have seen discussions regarding this article on the official Wikimedia Discord server, checked the article, and found that it was being nominated for deletion (there was no canvassing and I came here on my own terms, but I feel like this is important to note, especially since I don't typically engage in this subject area). Anyways, GEOROAD only states that roads are typically notable, but it does not say that roads are always notable. I feel like these sorts of misinterpretations of notability guidelines are way too frequent. This is a bit of an off-topic example (but this is an area I actually engage in so allow me to make an analogy) is how sometimes deletion discussions for song or album articles will receive keep votes solely because notability guidelines for songs state that a song might be notable if it's charted, even though the guidelines never say it is guaranteed to be notable solely because of it. I believe the same applies here, just in a different subject area and under ever so slightly different circumstances. Furthermore, WP:SNG (which is what GEOROAD is) clearly states that "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". Since in-depth sourcing for this subject does not exist, then the topic is likely not suitable. Now, to offer a different perspective on the matter even if it's far more geared towards my personal opinion, I would like to present WP:NOPAGE. There is so little to say about this subject that leaves me less satisfied than when I started reading it. If an article leaves you with more questions than answers, and those issues cannot reasonably be addressed, is that really something which should exist on Wikipedia? I guess maybe my perspective on that isn't shared by other people though, as it somehow passed GAN in 2014, and was later kept at a GAR. But this isn't the main motivator behind my vote, so I won't linger on this too much. Anyways, the reason I vote merge is because we have List of state routes in Ohio, where this article can easily be merged or redirected and nothing would be lost. λ NegativeMP1 19:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiherbach (Edersee)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much on de.wiki which could be added. It feels like there ought to be some RS on a 10km river, but I'm not seeing anything. Interested to see if others find anything to consider against the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guandou Subdistrict

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

Doesn't meet WP:NTOWN, doesn't seem to have non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTOWN, as a "Populated, legally recognized place" notability is presumed. Jumpytoo Talk 09:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully agree with the above. Ike Lek (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without citations/bibliography/references/sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NTOWN, so the article automatically gets a pass. Would be nice to expand it, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holmcroft

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

This article has no sources, does not appear on any council websites except as a surgery or restaurant. Nowhere is this just a road name. So it is unlikely to be a neighborhood in its own right. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opted to repair this malformed nomination, rather than continue the more-properly-formatted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holmcroft (2nd nomination), because this nomination is the one linked from the AfD notice that is not supposed to be changed during the discussion period. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syria (region)

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

Merge with the article Levant, literally two articles about the exact same region, historical and cultural unit existing in two different articles. I see no reason for this. Yabroq (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Yabroq (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Without looking at the sources, I will say that if the region called Syria is treated as conceptually distinct from the region called the Levant, even if their supposed territories (I just mean maps, not political claims to land) are identical, then the articles ought to be kept separate. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The terms are distinct. Levant often includes Cyprus, Syria never has. Levant had a much wider and vaguer meaning in medieval terms, Syria was reasonably consistent since it was defined clearly by the Ancient Greeks. We could add other terms like Eastern Mediterranean and Outremer. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason for deletion or merging as there are sources which clearly discuss this as a separate region. I assumed when I saw this on the watch list that it would have been some newly created POVFORK but it's been around for 12 years now, so I don't understand this nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 08:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other comments Dege31 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:RELAR These are two regions discussed in a wide range of sources in varying contexts and subjects. These regions have their own historical usage as terms/concepts. The fact that they mostly overlap isn't enough of a reason to assume they are identical. (For example, Levant is sometimes considered to be a broader region.) Aintabli (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easytown, Indiana

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

Another case where WP:GEOLAND's presumption of notability is called into question, because once again I'm failing to find sources other than primary sources which tell the truth about this place: namely, to the degree to which this ever existed, is doesn't now exist. I did find one reference which seemed to associate it with a mine, but nothing with any substance; and the aerials (including GMaps) show that it was utterly erased some time in the 1970s, to the point where the only evidence it was ever there is GNIS and the corresponding map label. If someone can find something better than Baker and updates the article, I'll be glad to withdraw this, But I'm again bothered by the notion of an article which can tell the truth about the place only through my exercise of WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The town was the subject of a 1998 article in the Indianapolis News [3], which claims it was demolished in 1978. Is this enough for a WP page? I can find a few other mentions over the years in newspapers but most are passing, talking about unusual place names or mentioning someone "from Easytown". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Vermillion County historical society's 1990 book describes it as a "former town" where a mining worker lived. [4] A listing in a scholarly article on coal mines lists the mine as "Universal Easytown." It's really thin, but it might be enough. SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King's Wood, Corby

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

No independent refs on the page. Nothing much else found to suggest notability JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This nature reserve is referenced by Natural England and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire. It is notable as a designated nature reserve. "Nothing much else found" is a vague criterion for deletion and incorrect as a matter of fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are independent sources. Both are involved in managing/owning the site. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Trust manages the site. Natural England is the regulator and the site is mentioned briefly in their database of all local nature reserves. JMWt (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another independent source. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local nature reserves are designated as such by local authorities, not nationally. NGEO: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level ... are presumed to be notable. Dege31 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the independent coverage is minimal, or in passing. There is little that this article adds that is not already in the list, and I moved the only substantial reference which had been missing. Dege31 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not correct that there is minimal independent coverage. It is substantial. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, might I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:SIGCOV. As the examples there show, short mentions in passing are not substantial. So in my opinion, newspaper articles which are not directly on topic but only mention the reserve in passing are not substantive. Short news articles which are on topic but are simply notices are not normally considered a sign of notability.

And that ultimately is where we disagree. There is coverage, but nothing that says this nature reserve meets the inclusion standard. If we were to allow this one, then we would have to include all the other thousands of English local nature reserves on the same basis. As far as I see, this isn't an SSSI or NNR, it's not an archaeological or geological reserve. Nobody has written a published book about it, nobody has used it as a site for their ecological studies. It's just not that important. JMWt (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are passing mentions which I did not add, but cumulatively support notability. Coverage in the database of Natural England of local nature reserves on its own establishes notability, and there are thousands of articles on them. I see no reason to single out this article as not notable. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do some source analysis.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20161221235750/http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/lnr/lnr_details.asp?C=30&N=&ID=244			Generic info in a database bolstered with a paragraph of 'what to see'	? Unknown
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/people/north-northamptonshire-council-awarded-grant-by-government-as-part-of-its-woodland-creation-accelerator-fund-3938810			Passing mention	✘ No
https://magic.defra.gov.uk/home.htm			This is a map	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222000758/http://www.wildlifebcn.org/reserves/kings-wood	This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts		Database profile	✘ No
https://www.rockinghamforest.org.uk/nnc-woodlands	Funded by North Northamptonshire Council	Appears to be tour guides	Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.wildlifebcn.org/nature-reserves/kings-wood-and-rammamere-heath	This is an article on the website of the Wildlife Trusts			✘ No
https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/political-opinion-independent-candidate-launches-fresh-campaign-for-corbys-kingswood-ward-5072782		Even if the reserve was mentioned, this looks like a press release	The reserve is not even mentioned	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qvjv3lqe5o			King's Wood is only relevant as belonging to the set of relevant parks, not in itself	✘ No
https://www.northnorthants.gov.uk/corby-woodland-project/kings-wood-nature-reserve	This is an article on the website of the North Northamptonshire Council		Generic, basic info	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dege31 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep were the subject of two books by Jeffrey A. Best in the 1980s which the 2020 book "Trees and Woodlands in the British Lands" calls "mighty." I cannot access them or the book "The Royal Forests of Northamponshire" from the 1960s, and at least one research article on trees near road construction from the 1950s. Also some newspaper articles [5] - I'm sure there would probably be more if I could do a historical record search as I see lots of mentions over a period of time. If this is GEOLAND, then we're clearly there, GNG is more marginal but there's enough here to write an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. You are basing it on two books you can't access? What is the subject of the books you reference? JMWt (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basing a comment on snippets of books to which you do not have full access to is valid. The article has pages devoted to it in two independent reliable sources, which are cited in the article. There are 7 million articles in English Wikipedia and most of them have problems with uncited statements, unreliable sources and statments not in the sources. Unlike this majority, the article is fully and correctly referenced. It also has more evidence of notability than at least a million articles. I find it puzzling that editors think that they can best improve Wikipedia by devoting so much time to making a case for deleting this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know the names of the authors and the subject of the book. That's not too much to ask when someone asserts that they're enough to show that the notability criteria have been met. That's it. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a reference to "King's Wood Corby: Description, History, Explanation of Habitats and Wildlife" and "King's Wood Corby- local nature reserve: Evaluation and proposed management plan" Dege31 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those appear to be publications from a Higher Education college (which ultimately became the University of Northampton). Without actually being able to see them, we don't know if they are RS, peer reviewed or anything else. Simply knowing that they exist isn't enough. JMWt (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Haven, Wabash County, Indiana

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

A residential neighborhood of Wabash apparently built in the mid-1950s if you believe the topos. Other than that I could find nothing except real estate stuff and juxtapositions with the place of the same name in Michigan. The Wabash article doesn't list neighborhoods, not that this one is notable anyway, so I don't see a redirect. The location appears to be way off, btw: the older topos that show it indicate it to be a strip pm the area now labelled. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles on Wabash neighborhoods/subdivisions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - non notable mid century developments, fails GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete all lack of notability/substantial info. --Altenmann >talk

Mgboko

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

Has been tagged as unsourced since 2018. There's no indication of notability, and searching the title on Google gives me not much except for other related Nigerian towns. Many geostubs seem to slide are the radar, and I think this is one of them. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 19:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Meets the notability criteria for cities. See this source: Ozuruimo ... Festival Brochure. Imo State Council for Arts and Culture. 1989. p. 50. …HEADQUARTERS: For Administrative convenience, Obioma Ngwa has its Headquarters at Mgboko a town which… Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Right now this is failing verification. The only source I have is GMaps, which labels the spot given with a different name. I have no problem with recreation given sources that actually locate this and describe it, but it doesn't cut the mustard to say "well it's a town, so we have to keep it." Cough up some basic sourcing and we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe I don't think "the only source I have" is sufficient reason to "leaning delete" especially since you're not familiar with the subject, I think it should be "the only source that exist". Anyway, I have added sources to the article, you should take a look. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sufficient reason for leaning delete because if I were certain it didn't exist or was wrongly categorized, I wouldn't be leaning. Produce a real source for the location and I'll withdraw my objection. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe Did you check the article back? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, 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. We're talking about the headquarters of a local government area in Nigeria. Second, Obingwa is a Local Government Area of Abia State, Nigeria. Its headquarters are in the town of Mgboko, which has an area of 395 km².^[6] The nominator wasn't correct when they said there's no indication of notability, because according to NPLACE, this is a clear "indication" of notability, unless "indication" now has a different meaning. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but where is it? We need a source for that too, and one that verifies (as best we can) against the Real World(tm). Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Mboko" slightly to the north of Aba on figure 4, page 8. Dege31 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nekkonda

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

Article is little more than a basic definition of the term. No history or anything. Gommeh 🎮 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 🎮 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legally recognized settement with demographic info. Dege31 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more community input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The place exists [7] and [8] talk about the place, and about railway events there. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Populated, legally recognized place. Telugu Wikipedia has more information. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pekalongan flood and landslide

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING: "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding ..." Effects here included a 14-day disaster emergency, eleven districts that were affected, buildings that were destroyed, bridges that were swept away, 25 deaths, 13 injured, 2 or 3 people who disappeared (often also dead). gidonb (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the subject of sustained significant secondary coverage. Articles like this should not be created unless the event is written about retrospectively. Wikipedia is not a repository of miscellaneous news stories. Falls far below the standard set at WP:LASTING. Note that quantities associated with a subject are not factored into AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, quantities associated with a subject are not factored into AfD. Yet, that is stating the irrelevant. The relevant information is that, like the above, WP:EFFECTs are factored into AfDs so your argument was already refuted before it was written! gidonb (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So far what we have is the destruction of multiple buildings and structures resulting in damage estimated to cost 30 million USD, the aid, and a very large amount of deaths for a flood. [9] is a slightly more retrospective article from a few months after the floods discussing the damage in the region and the changes being made to emergency response as a result of the the floods + the relocation of the people in the village. [10], also published a few months after the floods, discusses the fact that the relocations hadn't happened yet, and that the villagers were living in evacuation centres. Last month, there's a passing mention [11] about how the flood had impacted the villager's access to electricity, tying it in to the much broader subject of the monopoly that is Perusahaan Listrik Negara versus a smaller micro hydro plant. Given that we don't have a prohibition on creating event articles until they can be written about in scholarly sources (that can have a year or two turn around at a minimum, so good enough sources literally can't exist yet for pretty much any article about an event in 2025), and this one has already shown lasting effects on the region, keep with no prejudice against a merge should somebody find a suitable page. (And maybe revisit in a few years) GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 07:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our guideline as cited by gidonb above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society

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

Upon review, no reliable sources could be found that are independent of the source and contain relevant factual information. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Nixleovel (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, Geography, and Ireland. Nixleovel (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. Plus, the society itself doesn't even have an article. GoldRomean (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a good merge to the society, but since that article doesn't exist, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I turned up nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV so as to meet WP:GNG. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James P. O'Connor, the editor of the journal, as an alternative to deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 08:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Knox490 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sialkot Dagger

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

I am unable to find reliable sources for this term. It is possible that this area is referred to by a different term for which there are sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Pakistan, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese wiki does seem to show that it is called the Akhnoor Dagger or Chicken's Neck. No comment on notability at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Salient (geography) is the generic term for this kind of feature. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Akhnoor Dagger" or return the article to "Chicken's Neck (Pakistan)", its title until an undiscussed move yesterday. While the name "Sialkot Dagger" is unreferenced, the place itself is notable as Akhnoor Dagger or Chicken's Neck. I have added some references to the article. — AjaxSmack 15:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding these references. I hadn't given any preference in my nomination statement, but I'm now suggesting that Move to "Akhnoor Dagger" seems to be the best option. I would argue that the term "Sialkot Dagger" doesn't have any reliable references for it and should be deleted once it becomes a redirect, but that might be an argument to be made at RFD later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move per AjaxSmack. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Akhnoor Dagger per AjaxSmack. Would love to here from @Jamuxe: about why they made the move before deciding whether to keep the current title as a redirect. - Ike Lek (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy

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

WP:NOTDATABASE，the article looks like data tables? 日期20220626 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, Lists, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page really has a weak point that it contains little description. But that means that the description should be added. Deletion of the whole atricle with true and virified statistics for the topic, designed in convenient form, instead of adding the description is not a good strategy.

Possible solution: mark the page as a stub. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible solution: blow it up and start over again. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a person who will start it over again. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - we have list articles for a reason. Does this article meet WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a preamble to the article. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Demographics of Belgium: where it is a perfect fit, with no need to independently meet NLIST. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an ideal solution. Ike Lek (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has 11 reliable sources, meaning it satisfies notability. Historyexpert2 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete The big issue here is the meaningfulness of the numbers. The spread over the whole set is pretty small, and about the only really "valid" conclusion I can draw is that Walloons tend to die a bit younger— assuming that the residency there is even a contributing factor. This really needs context to justify what otherwise is bordering on an offense against WP:NOTDATABASE. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that this comes across as properly part of a more general comparison between the provinces/regions than as a strictly demographic dump. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my humble point of view, spread of 4 years is enough tangible. On the other hand, informatin that this spread is only 4 years but not 10 is also valuable knowledge.
A Wikipedia article must give reliable information, but it does not have to have a ready-made conclusion. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a one-off list. Many similar ones exist, like List of Mexican states by life expectancy. In fact, there is one for every large state. See "Category:Ranked lists of country subdivisions". Historyexpert2 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuquanying

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

Non-notable intersection. In attempting to source this article, I was unable to find any valid sources about this particular intersection, much less anything that would contribute to notability. Garsh (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems odd to me that the article is focused on an intersection. Isn't Yuquanying a major road, not just an intersection? (There seem to be many articles about the road and building complexes on the road via Google News.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yuquanying Subdistrict. The Chinese name here is 玉泉营, which seems to refer to a variety of topics in that area, but I think all can be covered at the main subdistrict article. That article could be expanded with this source, which covers the history of the area in depth, though its reliability could be debated [12]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Sources have been added, focus has been expanded to mention Yuquanying's 800 years of history as one of the 18 floricultural villages of the Fengtai district of Beijing before becoming the site of a major highway intersection and overpass. (OK I'm still in the process of untangling how best to cite and/or edit that section, which could still take several days as I try to work on other things.) Sincerely appreciate the pointer to the administrative subdistrict page provided by Toadspike (not to mention their spirit of investigation which is what makes these geography AfD puzzles interesting), but the modern administrative subdistrict article can remain separate from the Yuquanying article about the history of the village since the Jin dynasty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this – I considered expanding this article, but decided that Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article about a populated place, is more suitable for this information. I don't mean to be rude, but you have effectively hijacked this article and changed its topic to one that we already cover elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 800-year history of the village of Yuquanying, where there is now also a highway overpass, is not covered at all in the current article about Yuquanying Subdistrict, which focuses on an administrative region established in 2021. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can only have one topic claiming notablity per GEOLAND on this, and here it should be the legally-recognized subdistrict. Of the three sources you link, the first is about the subdistrict, the second lists Yuquanying among other subdistricts like Majiapu Subdistrict and some places that don't seem to have legal recognition, and the third is a mathematical analysis of traffic at the intersection that doesn't actually tell us anything about the intersection. I am not convinced this shows the need for a split from the main subdistrict article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can still keep looking for more sources; those were just indicative and as I said, it's still a work in progress. The first source actually leads with the modern Yuquanying subdistrict but the third paragraph is about the historical village of Yuquanying and its 800-year history as a flower town. The second source is interesting because it references the historical (centuries-old) concept of the 18 villages of Fengtai district, which is discussed elsewhere in books and suggests a fruitful line of research, and also provides more context about the floricultural history of the region. (Actually not sure what to do with "Beijing Yuquanying highway" in the third source; not even sure if it's actually about the actual intersection or overpass. Is it? Very unclear from looking at the article.) Anyway Wikipedia is full of multiple articles about the same geographic location. We could easily keep splitting this article into sub-topics and at minimum, Yuquanying would have to be retained as a disambiguation page. (And yes, you are correct: it is more polite to assume good faith per WP:AGF.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Toadspike, I don't see a convincing argument for keeping both Yuquanying Subdistrict and Yuquanying, the history part of this article, which I guess was added post-nom, can be put in the subdistrict article and this can redirect there. Moritoriko (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even clear that the administrative region is geographically in the same place as the old village! In fact, it subsumes several old neighbouring villages, possibly. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese geography and naming is a bit outside my wheelhouse, but would you say it is likely that the name of the subdistrict was chosen because of the old village? Doing further research on the "18 villages of Fengtai" is not showing me much of anything either, perhaps that information should be put in that article instead. Moritoriko (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the kind of assumption that leads to misinformation on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to geographical history. Every claim made on Wikipedia should be verifiable per WP:V. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am asking you if this is true, and doing it in the AfD instead of putting it in the article. I'm not going to put unverified information out there >( Moritoriko (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At minimum, this discussion could be closed as no consensus and if other editors seriously want to pursue a merge discussion, they can start one, though I remain unconvinced from the arguments made above that the now significantly expanded and referenced Yuquanying (covering the 800-year history of Yuquanying village and the surrounding area through the early 21st century) should be merged into the Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article focused on the governance and boundaries of a modern administrative region that was created in 2021. Also, WP:HEY. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the sources added since my last comment here:
- [13] mentions Yuquanying market once, among a list of others. Not SIGCOV.
- [14] mentions that a segment of the Beijing–Kaifeng highway starts at the Yuquanying interchange. Not sigcov.
- [15] is about the local government of Yuquanying Subdistrict, which already has its own article.
- [16] Two photos of Yuquanying, with captions that tell us nothing about the place. Not sigcov.
- [17] mentions Yuquanying Flower Market among a list of others, alongside its opening hours. This is not sigcov; often such coverage promoting businesses/events is also not considered independent.
- [18] is a passing mention, not sigcov, though it does provide the interesting factoid that the Yuquanying Flower Market was "[Beijing's] largest potted flower wholesale market" at the time (in 2003).
- [19] is a government report on a fire at a business (玉泉营环岛家具城, 'Yuquanying Roundabout Furniture City'), not really about the town.
The article Yuquanying Subdistrict doesn't have to meet the GNG because it meets NPLACE, but we can't make the same carveout twice for the same place. I remain unconvinced that we need two separate articles and strongly stand by my original position that these articles should be merged. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "We can't make the same carveout twice for the same place" is not policy – it actually demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the broader landscape of Geography and History articles across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is vast though, and there is no deadline, so I would recommend joining up with more WikiProjects where you might get exposed to a larger volume of articles. (I find my own perspective changes all the time, the more I read and the more I edit and the more I participate across different WikiProjects.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've only got one editor in favour of keeping the article, but it's been expanded considerably since the delete !votes, so we don't really have consensus for anything else, either. Suonii180, Jeepday, do you care to revise your positions? Anyone else have an opinion on whether this is a suitable merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yuquanying Subdistrict. The subject passes WP:GEOLAND, but there's no reason to have two articles about the same subdistrict.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know they are the same geographic coordinates? The problem is, we don't. It's the highway in particular, which was the genesis of this article, which I'm uncertain actually is located within, or managed by, the administrative subdistrict itself. The ancient village itself was likely also only a subset of the modern Yuquanying subdistrict, which now subsumes many neighbouring villages as well. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear this discussion is essentially ending up as no consensus and that the merge discussion should continue separately if needed outside of AfD, with proper evidence rather than casual AfD !voting. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions