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

Witts Station, Indiana

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

A station on an ex-C&O line. The station nuilfings show up quite plainly on a 1856 aerial and on the 1961 topo, along with a short siding; but except for the house on the other side of the tracks, that's all there is, and except for that house, it's all gone now. The only reference of any substance referred to it (inaccurately) as a crossroads. Just no sign this was a town. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's right there in the name, it's just a station (or was), clearly not a community. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. It does appear on maps at least as far back as 1953 but that's probably as a rail waypoint. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naukatola Raxaul

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

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

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

Yankee Town, Indiana

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

A complete nothing-place about which I could find nothing. Note that there is also a Yankeetown, Indiana which is an actual town and which helps confuse searching. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonexistent place apart from post-1960 USGS topo maps, which inexplicably call this a "town" despite there being no infrastructure then and certainly not now, just an intersection in the midst of farmland without even a house nearby. Absolute failure of WP:NPLACE and confusing to boot since there is a Yankeetown, Indiana. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalvøya, Bærum

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Norway, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandvika, where it is mentioned.Ingratis (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists. Deleting this will just leave a hole of this size in the middle of the lists into which it is transcluded. Of course, listing of geographic features by size is very well-established, and this specific division is just a convenient subset of the entire list. With respect to the concern that there are items on the list that should not be there, feel free to remove those. There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities. There are more than enough countries and first level subdivisions to fill up the list. BD2412 T 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists." No, this is an article. Whether another list transcludes this or not is an issue for that list, not for AfD. This article here and now is directly readable by readers, it is categorized, it should meet our criteria for an article. "listing of geographic features by size is very well-established" across some randomly decided characteristics? I don't think so. A list of countries by size is not a problem and wouldn't be at AfD, what is at AfD (and can't be helped by cleanup) is this combination of (officially) continents, countries, and "first level subdivisions", and (in practice) everything else that someone wants to add (and that apparently not only pollutes not just this page then, but also all these other pages this is transcluded onto). Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention? Fram (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities That seems to be the case for a substantial amount of this list, though, there are a lot of Canadian islands here, and the two lists below have nearly 300 Scottish islands. These lists could be more meaningful if they don't attempt to – yet obviously fail badly – be so comprehensive. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: If there is not an objection to listing countries and their states/provinces, then removing the smaller islands is a cleanup task. The larger islands tend to be their own administrative divisions. BD2412 T 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't believe this meets the criteria for a speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP is not a speedy keep criterion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can read it as a "strong keep", then, but if a subset of a an uncontested series of lists is deleted because that subset is deemed not individually notable, then it would pretty much automatically be merged up to the larger list, which has not been nominated for deletion here. That would just be clean up and merge. BD2412 T 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added these two because their Prod was removed, and for the same reasons. Fram (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all). This is such a random WP:CROSSCAT of things, that it's difficult to tell what should even be included or excluded. I see some silly micronation on the small end, as well as a department of France, which appears to be second-level, not first, along with random islands and full nations. Why are such things combined together? It's even bad enough if you try to restrict to only first-level subdivisions, as these are rather different entities from nation to nation. This is exactly the sort of dreck that NLIST, CROSSCAT, etc., should be used to weed out. And make no mistake, there's nothing all that special about sorting by area. We could also do it by population, by number of roads, or total jellybean exports. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have such lists for population or jellybean exports because those are far less stable. If they were unchanging, it would make sense to have lists. BD2412 T 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so replace population and jellybean exports by highest and lowest elevation, number of lakes, or whatever and the point remains. Those would be stable, yet no reasonable person would argue we should have those. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in my opinion this is a really bad example of cross-categorisation, although the article(s) also transclude into List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all) and List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 0.1 to 1,000 square kilometers and the AfD templates appear to mess up the tables. There should be some discussion as to how to deal with these articles too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started this by noticing (and prodding) List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 1 square kilometer in the new pages overview. That page doesn't seem to be linked to from any other article at the moment, and had no attribution if it was copied from somewhere else either. No idea why this one doesn't get transcluded and some others do, also no idea whe the very small entities are listed here, and in the <50km² list, and in the overall list, and perhaps elsewhere as well: it's a complete mess I guess, and transcluding articles into other articles is in general a bad idea. Anyway, these other articles have the same issues as the three up for deletion now, and should probably all be nominated for the same reasons. Does anyone have an overview of which articles we are talking about altogether? Fram (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, what a long list of pages with the same issues, how has this been allowed for so many years? Lists of political and geographic subdivisions by total area... Fram (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area (all)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 50 square kilometers
There are also some redirects to these. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Windom, Indiana

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

It proved impossble, in searching, to get out of the shadow of the former secretary of the treasury, and of a particular agricultural report, but the lack of anything substantial at the location in any topo or aerial indicates that this is one of the those relatively short-lived pre-RFD post offices and not a town. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE. Only briefly a post office at most. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heikant, Vught

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

Did a WP:BEFORE search and couldn't come across anything relevant to the subject. Didn't find any significant coverage whatsoever in the article. Editz2341231 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ample sources. Well recognized location. Had 440 residents. Meets BASIC. Location of the Jewish cemetery of Den Bosch. gidonb (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has one source and it doesnt meet the general notability guideline. It's unlikely that it has ample sources. Since 'Heikant, Vught' is a “former hamlet,” it doesn’t qualify for the automatic presumption of notability granted to legally recognized populated places under WP:GEOLAND. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search proves that this large and official hamlet was included in every relevant geographical dictionary. Per NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's big and bold so editors will not miss it. They still do. Per NPLACE: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. The population of Heikant, Vught wasn't even particularly low. Especially not for a hamlet. This nomination has no base in our P&G. gidonb (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Valley, Indiana

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

Here we have another WPA-produced puzzle, because every single reference I find for this is rail-related. Aside from a federal case involving the shipment of oack timber, I find references to this as a staging point for the gypsum mill which is indeed still around the corner on a short branch which splits off from this point. There's also the common railroad structure enumeration. But the post office dates are odd. Nonetheless the testimony at this point is that this is and was a rail point and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 18 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)} 12:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a rail point, not a community, failing WP:NPLACE and WP:NGEO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with WeirdNAnnoyed. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mottram's Beach

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

unsourced article about unnotable beach; fails WP:GNG and can't find anything online harrz ^talk 20:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of any usage of the term before this year. It looks like it has been invented by somebody creating a pin on Google Maps with this name a few months ago (the location of the pin is actually named Ringstead Bay). Joe D (t) 20:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, Ringsted Bay is the bay area, Ringsted Beach ends at the outcrop of rocks (breakwater) east of the slipway. The beach between there and Burning Cliff is called Mottram's Beach, and has been for nearly 100 years, it was recently incorrectly labelled as Jenkins Beach, which was corrected this year, maybe that's why it looks to have been invented recently.

It's clearly marked on the National Trust maps in the area as 'Mottram's Beach'. 2A00:23C6:5E85:601:FC9E:97D7:3F57:B0C2 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source for this, I will happily change my opinion from "delete" to "merge and redirect to Ringstead Bay" (there is unlikely to ever be an article's worth of information to say about the beach itself, it can be covered in the bay article – but only if the name can be verified). Joe D (t) 21:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an image of the map at the top on the National Trust carpark overlooking Ringsted Bay. The NT are the land owners of the AONB. (You might need to zoom in a bit to read the name).

https://imgur.com/a/guv3PLh 2A00:23C6:5E85:601:FC9E:97D7:3F57:B0C2 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Martin, Indiana

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

Something of an odd case, as usually a post office that old is attached to a town. But I could find no documentation of one here, so "just a post office' seems to be the verdict. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 17 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)} 17:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, only a post office was here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insignificant location. Shankargb (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck diving sites of Cape Town

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

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

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

Arcadia Hill

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

Does not appear to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements for places. Noleander (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Finland. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parliament House, Helsinki. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parliament House, Helsinki Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a translation from the Finnish article. A counterpart in Swedish also exists. Kaihsu (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parliament House, Helsinki, since coverage seems to be generally limited to the Parliament building and not the hill itself. MarioGom (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parliament House, Helsinki. Shankargb (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yenne, Indiana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lakeside, Indiana

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

A crossroads where there were one two homesteads, now down to one, and where there was evidently a post office. Searching was complicated by the many places claiming to be lakeside (which this spot manifestly is not) and by another Lakeside where there was apparently a Union Carbide plant, which is certainly not the case for this quite isolated and rural location. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator, it's just a single homestead and former post office. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "there's no there, there" as the saying goes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient coverage to justify inclusion. Every town in the world does not warrant their own page, this town in particular seems not notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Costas del Tacuarí

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

Fails WP:N, and the article has been completely unsourced since 2009, and the only external link is dead w/o archives. [1] ADifferentMan (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the es.wiki article shows it’s a populated place and a quick search for sources shows several, and certainly enough to meet WP:NPLACE. Mccapra (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a legally recognized region, as required by WP:GEOLAND. This might need a merge to Treinta y Tres Department. MarioGom (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- per MarioGom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Uruguay. MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanco, Tulare County, California

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

Fails WP:NPLACE, I did a WP:BEFORE search, and did not find significant coverage, or any mentions of a Blanco in Tulare County (except on topos). From above, this area seems to be only be a farm. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:18, 15 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) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Older topos show this was the site of a passing siding on the Santa Fe line. Before the dairy complex was built around 2000, there was just nothing here. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an unincorporated location WP:NPLACE, notability is established through WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources giving significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tregaron Conservancy

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

There's a little weak sourcing, e.g. [2][3], but no great need for a separate article when this is covered in Tregaron Estate#History. A redirect there is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The articles should remain distinct because Tregaron's story since 1980 has been one of bifurcation for distinct uses by different owners. 98.204.119.0 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Seyberts, Indiana

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

Baker identifies it as a post office, though topos show it was probably also a rail station, as it sits adjacent to a long-abandoned rail grade which is almost completely vanished but which is quite plain in the oldest aerials. There's no town here and mo sign there ever was. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a town, just a post office named for the proprietor. Reywas92^Talk 13:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarks, Indiana

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

Another spot back=added to the topos via GNIS from the state highway maps, it settles on an isolated farmstead, but that may be coincidence. Topos show a Monon line running north by this spot, so it could be a rail spot, or perhaps a 4th class post office. But a town it is definitely not. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Creek, Indiana

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

What shows on the topos is a long passing siding on a now abandoned Wabash line. But there's no name, and this was added from the state highway map which has been the source of a number of other spurious places. I don't doubt that there was a station here, but there's no sign there was any town. Searching tended to produce hit on the township or the watershed. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE, no sign of a town. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of communes of Luxembourg by population

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

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

Redirect these lists to List of communes of Luxembourg. These lists do meet WP:NLIST but they're redundant. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casco Histórico de Vicálvaro

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

Does not satisfy WP:N and WP:RS DankPedia (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. DankPedia (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND itself says that it is not guaranteed notability, and geographic features with limited or no WP:RS do not meet the WP:GNG DankPedia (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet GEOLAND still creates a case for notability suggesting that drive-by deletion requests may require to put a little more work on the deletion side of discussion...--Asqueladd (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should review WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. If you are going to argue that every topic-specific notability criteria is ignored (as you seem to be repeatedly doing), you should be putting way more work in assessing existing sources. As Asqueladd put it, drive-by nominations won't cut it. MarioGom (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per existing refs. Furthermore, a quick WP:BEFORE check of Wikipedia articles in other languages would have turned up more refs. Per WP:GEOLAND, the neighborhood is officially recognized by the City government. Clearly notable! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish article notes the official population was 35,519 in 2023. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existing references and the additional source identified by A.B. are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. It is a legally recognized neighborhood [4]. There's also coverage in the press like [5]. Additional data about various demographic and economic aspects is available in reliable sources, both in book and paper form from a cursory look at Google Books and Scholar. MarioGom (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tannery Garden, Basirhat

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

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

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

Mount Pisgah, Indiana

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: weak keep - might have historical significance. e.g. see this [[6]] Asteramellus (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No evidence that this ever was a community in the sense required by GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshaft

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

There are no indications of notability. The sourcing consists entirely of primary sources and blogs, several of which have since been taken down. One of the sources appears to be a placeholder for a book written by a non-notable author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Geography. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability, lacking coverage WP:SIGCOV and contains a lot of original synthesis WP:NOR Ivey (talk - contribs) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is packed with material that is unsourced, credulous, and non-notable. What sourcing there is, as presented by the nom, is at best suspect. All about a thing that does not actually exist. WP:NOT applies. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Czech version of the article does seem to contain book sources. Not sure if these books are reliable or relevant, though. ApexParagon (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Czech version has long passages of unsourced material. Do we have any editors who understand Czech (does enWiki have a Czech WikiProject?) and are willing to evaluate the suitability of those books/authors? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know one. Not very active lately on the en.wiki project, but worth a shot. @Psax: you might be able to help. VdSV9•♫ 18:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient coverage at this point to justify inclusion. If this changes, please keep me posted. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Park-Warden Woods, Toronto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities and then delete. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that it does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. Little added value in bringing these together on one page. Wire723 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. I disagree with Wire723 in that I think this info could be valuable with a little (sourced to RSes) analysis of common languages and concepts that appear in the etymologies. As is, though, it's not a great list -- but the info is interesting enough to try to preserve. Even better if each item could be sourced in its new location. -- Avocado (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. This is not useful as a stand alone article. It makes more sense to distribute these into the respective articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do you all want to do with the page after the content is dispersed? Deletion would cause attribution problems if the material is being used elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For attribution concerns, redirect to Toponymy in the United Kingdom and Ireland (which, by the way, deserves expansion, e.g., with a phrase or two from the discussed page.) AFAIK page history is sufficient for attribution --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I suggested "disperse", I did not pay attention that the article is woefully underreferenced. So now I am beginning to doubt whether "dispersing" the unreferenced information is that brilliant idea. --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately this article is a product of its time. The problem is summed up in the list's own introduction: "... it is often difficult to assess the genuine etymology of a placename...". And that makes good sourcing vital. Does anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary of place names or Birlin 2004 for Scotland? These are offered as general references that might cover some of the etymologies. If the etymologies can't be properly referenced, then sadly the article has to go. Dispersing a load of unsourced information into individual county articles isn't great. And sourcing stuff to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is (in wikipedia terms) original research. I'm sad... Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanni forest

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

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

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

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

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

Dead Dog Beach

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced, and not notable enough to have a standalone article. Most of the article discusses topics that are only tangentially related. Better to merge the relevant information into Sato Project and/or Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. Stonkaments (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Yabucoa, Puerto Rico ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEONATURAL. It is a national reserve [7], covered by various media [8][9], travel guides [10], etc. It should be renamed to its real (official and local) name of Playa Lucia, since the "Dead Dog Beach" name is, as the article explains, a media fad / shock marketing thing. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MarioGom. It is a national reserve [11]. And yes name shoudl be changed to its original name, not Dead Dog Beach. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per MarioGom--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions