Points of interest related to Geography on Wikipedia:
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography.

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[edit]

Schnaitkapf

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

No refs on the page for many years. The refs on de.wiki do not appear to meet the GNG here. I don't speak German but I'm not seeing much which could be considered in terms of notability. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:GEOLAND applies. It's the highest point in the region and there are some references in the German article, and I've found a number of hiking entries, especially when including the Wilhemshütte at the base of the radio tower. Whether this is enough I'm not yet sure. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment while it's the highest local point, it's hardly the Matterhorn, and seems to be more of a local rambling destination than a great peak to which the world's mountaineers flock in hopes of conquest. We could keep the article, but does that serve our readers? It might be better to merge with Schwenningen, Sigmaringen and leave a redirect. Our article on Schwenningen is currently very thin, and the German equivalent does mention the Schnaitkapf, which is obviously viewed as a beautiful asset by the Schwenningeners. I'd rather have one good article on the locality than two unconnected stubs. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Razboishte Monastery

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

Unnotable monastery. All of the sources I've found either mention it in passing or are just blogs. Flux55 (my talk page) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Flux55 (my talk page) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Geography. Shaws username . talk . 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oppose. It's a notable monument and attraction in the area. Several articles mention it as a protected national monument of culture or an archeological monument of culture, although I can't find an official list online. Here's a article dedicated to the monastery's heritage and here's a passing mention in another one as one of the few cave monasteries in the Balkans. And this is a book about the monastery's history. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Assuming GF on its notability. This is possibly an English translation of the sourced Bulgiarian Wikipedia article. This site is all over the internet, but I am not sure if these are tourist listings, or otherwise. Is if possible to get an English translation of the Bulgiarian article? This site is all over YouTube in various postings. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep arguments from Todor Bozhinov above are convincing Arved (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Seems to easily pass WP:GNG when searching in Bulgarian? SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sources cited appear to satisfy GNG.Djflem (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately the online list of heritage listed sites in Sofia Province is a work in progress and Godech has not yet been added, but this will undoubtedly be on it and therefore meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda

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

No reason to have a separate list from Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda, where these seven are listed as well. These "capitals", apart from the real capital Saint John, are very small villages and don't seem to get special attention as a group apart from their role in the parishes, which is treated at the other article. I redirected it but was reverted. The minimal extra information here can easily be merged into the other article if necessary and sourced, and if the sources then work (many of the ethnicity pdfs don't load in either the original or the archived form, and I don't see where e.g. the "foreign born" percentages come from, the census document only gives these figures per parish) Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Antigua and Barbuda. Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda with the history intact so that sourced information can be merged if desired. There is no need to cover these details in two articles rather than one. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see how this situation is different from any other list of capitals of country subdivisions. CROIX^talk 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have spoken to the Statistics Division to fix the demographics links. All the other sources appear to be intact and prove that these are in fact parish capitals. CROIX^talk 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or redirect - seems to pass NLIST, but my preference would be to keep. The foreign born issue can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- What does it add that can't be (or isn't already) covered in the proposed target article? Duplicating information just because NLIST doesn't specifically disallow it (and NLIST doesn't disallow anything it seems) seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Then there should have been a merge discussion. There's no information in this article that needs to be deleted apart from maybe the foreign born percentages. But I don't think it's as duplicative as you're arguing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect or merge The main article already lists all the capitals, and the population could be added there. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cat Swamp

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or redirect to Providence, Rhode Island MNewnham (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County

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

Do we really need an article about an uninhabited village because it was listed in a 2011 census? I fail to see how this could be considered notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. We have many articles about formerly inhabited places, sometimes known as ghost towns. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a documented history of human habitation there, so this qualifies as a gazetteer entry under WP:5P1. If you click around the other language links, they have more information and graphs showing when the village was inhabited, so there's WP:POTENTIAL to expand this. It's not a lot, but it is conceivable that this would be of use to an average English reader who might stumble upon the location, like any other empty village. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete In spite of what people are saying, there's not enough reliable information here. A single census entry fails both ways: if it says it isn't populated, it doesn't say that it was, and if it says that it was populated, that's not a source for a lack of population now. Furthermore, the location given in the article (uncited and imprecise) does seem to go to a place that could be a tiny village, only GMaps assigns it a different name. Our experience sourcing articles entirely from census results has been poor, with a lot of misinterpretation. We do not need to be so desperate to keep every supposed dot on a map (which we do not have, I note) to keep this quite doubtful article. If someone comes up with better data it could be recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this argument about verifiability is useful because this is in fact easily verifiable if you know where to look. The Croatian Bureau of Statistics has on their website the "PC Axis" database for their dataset called Naselja i stanovništvo Republike Hrvatske 1857.-2001. (lit. 'Settlements and population of the Republic of Croatia 1857-2001.') which lists this Završje under Brod Moravice in the somewhat complex forms at [1] and we can easily verify the table at the other language Wikipedia, confirming continuous habitation between the first census of 1857 and 1981. Likewise an even more trivial Završje search at the Croatian State Geodetic Administration Geoportal website https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ produces it at the top, and that website also has an option to generate a deep link like this. --Joy (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thing I notice in the Geoportal map is that the former village itself is named "Završje", but so is a yellow outline of a number of surrounding villages with an uppercase form "ZAVRŠJE". I'm not sure what this layer with yellow outlines means, possibly a cadastral municipality or something? This probably adds some more value to continuing to document this toponym. --Joy (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep You just have to look at the Croatian article to see that its population has been tracked through time and has only been uninhabited for the past 30 years or so, peaking at 83 people, making it eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw - Clearly a keep. My bad. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of villages in Potiskum

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

Poorly sourced and overly narrow list of debatable accuracy. This is stated as a list of villages in a specific area, but Potiskum's article describes it as a city, not a region, and cities normally contain neighbourhoods rather than "villages" -- and even if "villages" were actually the appropriate designation here, it would still be far from clear that we actually needed a standalone list of them, as a separate page from Potiskum's main article, instead of just naming them in Potiskum's main article.
The sole source here, further, is a generic postal code directory which serves only to confirm that all of the places listed here have the same postal code across the board, while utterly failing to clarify the matter of whether these are really "villages" or "neighbourhoods", and thus doesn't constitute proof that this article needs to stand separately from Potiskum as a whole. Apart from this, all other Category:Lists of villages in Nigeria are organized at the state level, with no other lists of "villages in specific city" existing at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Zero bluelinks, redundant to an entry in List of villages in Yobe State. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. No notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Villieria

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly fails GNG. Regarding SNG, there is no evidence (including in a search I made) that it meets the SNG. Appears to be just a census tract and is actually Pretoria North8000 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you said "is actually Pretoria", I think you meant to say "is actually a suburb of Pretoria". GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I could find anything that says that it is a suburb of Pretoria (I.E. is actually a village/town etc. ) I would not have nominated. I meant that it appears to be IN/ a part of Pretoria, not a suburb of it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A "suburb" is a section of a town/city here. It is not a town itself. Saying "it is a suburb of Pretoria" & "it is a part of Pretoria" is the same thing here. Sincerely, GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we are using different meanings of "suburb". I meant "suburb" in the typical USA context, which is a separate town/village with it's own government and which is not legally a part of the city which it is a suburb to. And to say that from the research I did, it appears that Villieria is not that....that it is legally a part of the city of Pretoria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete It's a neighborhood in NE Pretoria, if you believe GMaps (the coords in the article go to dead center Pretoria). I couldn't find anything except real estate ads and clickbait, or routine listings. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pen-y-graig, Carmarthenshire

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, no sufficient sources found to develop the article, unreferenced since its creation. Not a name recognised by Ordnance Survey today, nor other online maps, unless connected to the "Penygraig road" in a similar location. Only seen it used as a trivial place name, possibly influenced by this article, and as a historic place name. However, as per the talk RM it may have been a building name, or a tiny village, since lost, and not enough for an article. Dank Jae 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wales. Dank Jae 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect to Llanelli#Settlements near Llanelli. Indeed not an OS settlement[2], can't find much online and although the Welsh Wikipedia article is more developed it mainly lists services etc nearby so doesn't really contain any content other than location etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Crouch, Swale, the cy article is bot generated, so just uses the coordinates to guess where the nearest stuff is or what constituency it is in. Dank Jae 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I just looked at the RM and see I was the nom and you supported where we questioned notability and I tagged the article for notability. Indeed the cy article is bot generated possibly from this article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can find no evidence that this is anything at all, and although it was something almost a century and a quarter ago, it appearing in some old gazetteers, I can find no documentation of what, specifically, it was. There are hints that, after what it was vanished, the name lingered in the names of some bungalows and a road on a council estate built in the 1960s. But no firm documentation of anything. The hints are in a sports player's biography, not exactly a firm geographic resource. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to even verify this. The other Pen-y-graig does not help. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsure Pen-y-Graig is marked on the OS six-inch 1888-1915 map,[3] and on the OS 25-inch map 1892-1914,[4] where Pen-y-graig looks like a hamlet. I found a reliable modern source: Llanelli Rural Council mentions Penygraig as a community,[5] (although this is not an official community for local government). An argument for keeping it is that does not seem to be a part of another place (based on the maps), it is unclear whether we might redirect it to Cwmcarnhywel, Bryn or Llwynhendy. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verbcatcher, The LRC source uses Clos Cilsaig, Dafen and Penygraig, Bynea. Clos Cilsaig, "clos meaning close?", seems to be a street name, so Penygraig is likely too (Penygraig Road), with Clos Cilsaig located in Dafen, and Penygraig located in Bynea (for some reason). So "community" here likely is used generally. Dank Jae 12:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DankJae: The LRC source says "Penygraig play area will also be situated on space formerly used as a play area at land behind Penllwynrhodyn Road." Penllwynrhodyn Road is about 200m from Penygraig road. The location of the Penygraig play area is confirmed by the picture in the LRC page (where they have copied a Google StreetView image).[6] This confirms that the LRC page uses Penygraig as an area, or a suburb. This qualifies for "Populated places without legal recognition" in WP:GEOLAND, but it should be "considered on a case-by-case basis" so there is no requirement to treat it as 'notable'. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Park Northpoint

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

Article has been unsourced since its creation almost twelve years ago. After a cursory look, I cannot find any sources. It's not clear this thing even exists any more, let alone is notable. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shaws username . talk . 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support deletion. Certainly fails WP:GNG, and per nom & WP:NEXIST, I also could not find anything relating to this planned park. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Business, and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Balgzand Gas Plant

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Geography, and Netherlands. Skynxnex (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK, Extremely little of the content is actually about the gas plant. As this article is a huge failure even before examining notability, the delete is without prejudice on the topic. gidonb (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mulgrave Tank railway station

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to List of closed railway stations in Sydney or Richmond railway line, though I am not sure if that would be helpful to readers. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This thesis indicates that Mulgrave Tank was just a watering tank and never a passenger station. Given that, I don't think a redirect is appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand Isle, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

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

I couldn't find source to prove this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana but I am not sure if it would be helpful to a reader. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - It appears to be an Exxon oil processing terminal, within the Romere Pass oil and gas field. You can see it clearly on satellite. Nothing to suggest a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beck Bottom

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

No indication of notability. Unsourced since creation in 2007. I've corrected the coordinates (which previously led to an unlabelled marshy area), so it now points to a small cluster of buildings identified as "Beck Bottom" on Ordnance Survey 1:50k mapping, but there is nothing to indicate that this is more than a single farm. The article called it a "village" until a few minutes ago when I amended it to "hamlet", having found it as one of the Cumbria articles in the WP:FEB24 unreferenced articles backlog drive.

Beck Bottom appears in our List of United Kingdom locations: Bea-Bem and GENUKI lists it as a gazetteer entry, but neither the Ordnance Survey's "Get Outside" nor Vision of Britain mention it. PamD 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - this is hard to find but it looks like it is a signposted place, see the instructions to access this wildlife reserve This road follows the eastern boundary of the reserve. After the turn off for Beck Bottom, park on the verge on the right hand side of the road. I think it might be tough to say much about it that could be referenced so I'm currently thinking it would likely be better merged to Lowick, Cumbria unless someone can source a good reference to show otherwise. JMWt (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There might well be a signpost to an individual farm, so I don't think this helps. @JMWt PamD 23:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an OS settlement[7] but might be better merged with Lowick. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm not sure that inclusion in that list qualifies as a "legally recognised place", and we don't see signs of "non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources", to quote the first two bullets of WP:NPLACE. PamD 23:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Recognition by OS is legal recognition in England. And if it is a farm, then it is a populated place.
    But then nobody is disagreeing with you that there is little to say on a standalone page. JMWt (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - So your interpretation is that every named farm on an OS map is "typically presumed to be notable"? I suppose it depends on how "place" is interpreted.
      In this case I think we will struggle to find a reliable source even for its inclusion in the Lowick, Cumbria article. The 2022 parish plan report mentions it twice as a location of flood concern, using two different spellings: Beck Bottom and Beckbottom. The 2005 plan mentions "Beck bottom" as the location of a bridleway problem. Neither shows whether it is anything more than one farm. PamD 08:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in some form - it's clearly a place, both in OS, and with a very small number people noted as living there in 1851, with some mentions in books on the Lake District over the years. SportingFlyer T·C 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1851 Mannex & Company directory of the area has this as two farms in the township of Lowick, run respectively by Williams Robinson and Rowlandson; and by the looks of things farms are exactly what it still is today. Although one is now named Riddings Farm. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No sign off the road. It seems to consist of a farm and three houses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gievenbach

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

Very limited refs on the page for many years - just a mention in a government list. Nothing much to suggest a 4km small stream meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep again notability is not what is in the article, I've found additional information here [8] and there are a lot of mentions of the stream in a BEFORE search. Since WP:GEOLAND is a low bar - we just need more than statistics - I'm convinced that is out there, especially with simple Google Scholar searches. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see how being a habitat for mudsnails makes this stream notable. It doesn't even appear that snails are particularly rare, it is just a place that the scientists found them. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blue Eagle, Minnesota

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

Not finding evidence of the existence of this "ghost town" as asserted in this unsourced article. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I found a mention of a Blue Eagle Mill in Westbrook: [9]. Otherwise nothing. No source, no article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither the history from the 2013 versions of this article, which gets street and avenue confused, nor the "personal knowledge" history from the 2014 versions of this article are verifiable. This has had its content blanked twice, and even been deleted once already, for being unverifiable. I have looked and come up empty. There is no documentation to be found confirming anything in the edit history of this article, and the editors who wrote it offered nothing. Add me to the list of editors who over the years have found this article to be unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Only the faintest whispers of Blue Eagle exist. The MNopedia article on the "Currie Line Railroad" written by a member of the Cotton County Historical Society says "Five miles farther west, the village of Blue Eagle had begun in 1870. The arrival of the Currie Line caused the small village’s demise. It was replaced with the village of Westbrook..."[10] That rail line opened in 1900. The 2014 Cottonwood County Visitors Guide[11] says "Thirty years before Westbrook was settled, pioneers established a nearby village known as Blue Eagle. When the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad came to plot out a town site, it got into a dispute with a landowner. As a result, a new town was platted." That story is consistent with the 2014 personal history edit of this article[12]. No hits on newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com of relevance. On the MN newspaper database, The Windom Reporter (local county seat newspaper) had a sentence on February 15, 1900, "I would like to know where that town of Blue Eagle is you newspaper men tell us about," which I take to be a suggestion that Blue Eagle isn't much of a "town". Alas that's the only 1900 issue online, so we can't see what the reporters were talking about. But the 1896 plat map of the county doesn't show anything marked as Blue Eagle. The best we can say it that it was a place name in use at some point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donegall Quay

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Could possibly as an WP:ATD be merged/redirected to Belfast, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Not sure how one sentence would "unbalance" that huge article, but a little bit of a better look reveals the very obvious WP:ATD: List of parks and gardens in Belfast. Djflem (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep seems absolutely notable as an important piece of Belfast shipping history, even if it is just a park now: [13] [14] A lot of what I've found is historical material behind paywalls so the article is difficult to improve easily, but a Google Books search and Google Scholar search should at least put notability beyond doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Doesn't appear a proper Wikipedia:BEFORE was conducted, even if it "doesn't appear" notable, which is a weak nomination. Djflem (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fairness a simple search only brought up database type sites, but at the same time simple searches have gotten a lot worse over the past couple years I think. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment perhaps I should have been clearer in my wording - by 'it doesn't appear' to be notable, I meant after looking for sources, I couldn't prove that it is. I am reluctant to say for sure whether something is notable or not, just myopinion, as it's amazing what sometimes others bring up. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does your clearer wording mean you were unable to determine if it was notable or not, and therefore decided, because of your inability to determine, to create a AFD nomination to let other people do the deeper research to satisfy your curiosity? Not sure that's the purpose of AfD nominations. Djflem (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brzozowy Borek

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka, but it is a part of a village rather a full one. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to the village this is part of. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaszuba, Podlaskie Voivodeship

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Sławno. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prohalino

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Suchodolina. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zujkowszczyzna

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony within Kamienna Stara. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND as a populated place, there's at least one car repair place located there. Agree there's not much we can say about it but it's not fictional, wouldn't be adverse to merging this into a new article of a list of villages in the area somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Łozowo-Kolonia

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Harasimowicze-Kolonia. Also note the official spelling has no hyphen. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pomona, Washington

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

The article claims the community formed in 1885, and was renamed in 1908. Consistently there are no newspaper articles about Pomona the community in the 1890s. During the 1900's when the Yakima county grange movement is getting going there is one mention of Pomona station, and couple in regard to Pomona grange district. Most mentions through 1910 are of Pomona Heights, and Pomona pumps. More than a few for Pomona Kansas, and Pomona, CA.

After 1910, references to a local place referred to simply as Pomona begin to appear, but are non specific as to it's nature. In 1912 and article appears that shows it to be a farming district. (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald/52082371/) Same as it was in 1909 (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-as-a-district-and-gran/141165563/). Going forward the mentions become all about Pomona grange district. If this was ever a community there is no evidence of it. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: The Washington Historical Quarterly specifically describes it as a station, not a town: [15]. All other mentions found were passing. There is currently a Pomona Road and a Pomona View trailer park in the area, but no "community" evident. I lived in the area for a while and never heard anyone refer to Pomona as a place, FWIW. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vörehult

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

No real assertion of notability, no sigcov to be found online and Google Books only returns statistical lists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Vörehult appears along with Kanagärde and Mjödehult on lists. Each is recognised by a road sign along the 521 road south of the village of Påryd. Vörehult features on a boulder climbing website.[16]. It has a few houses, but as the nominator says doesn't appear to pass GNG or NPLACE. Could be mentioned in the Påryd article and redirected there if a note is added about the boulder climbing, but needs a second source. Rupples (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, agree there would need to be better sources for the boulder climbing. Having searched for sources and found nothing of note, I'm not pushing for a redirect. Rupples (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no sources. No real relevance. I could be changing my opinion if a source is provided. With as well a small expansion of information.BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep From my before search, a very very small place, but people have been born and lived there, and has a road sign, so passes the very low bar of WP:GEOLAND. Actually one of my stranger before searches as it's mostly individual people from there have actually come up, along with a rock to boulder. Just need one clear source to WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but they do prove people think it's currently an active place of note, which is what we're trying to record here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karel Destovnik Kajuh (district)

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

I could only find coverage about the person that this district is named after; I cannot even find mentions about this place. As a result, it doesn't meet general notability guidelines. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
redirect to Karel Destovnik. - Altenmann >talk 23:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Celje#Districts and local communities. We might want to discuss other Celje district and local communities stubs together with this. --Upwinxp (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Celje#Districts and local communities. There is not much content and it can safely be added to the said article. In general, it would be best to have a comprehensive article/list on all the communities of Celje. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

East Selah, Washington

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

Prod was declined based on naive reading of the newspapers. This is another of those communities that purportedly grew up around the train station. According to the Pomona, Washington article, The Selah train station was renamed Pomona. Additionally, This news article (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-east-selah/140757627/) about a bridge being built at Pomona station states the East Selah and Pomona station are the same. That article also makes no mention of a town being there.

East Selah is Grange district, a valley in the grange district and a river in the valley. The newspapers don't contain any mentions definitively proving this was a town. While many of the mentions of East Selah are non specific about the nature of the place. Many other mentions are specific, referring to it as a district and valley and the residents thereof being from East Selah. While none are found saying it is town.

Key examples: This news article https://www.newspapers.com/image/457179495/?terms=East%20Selah&match=1&clipping_id=94435529 gives some description of the East Selah valley in 1910 and describes it as "out in the sage brush." No mention of a town.

This is pretty decent example of an article where releative clear that it is just a valley where ranchers live. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-east-selah-valley/141041529/ James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I realized that the first article about the bridge does mention a town in the area, it's just not called East Selah.James.folsom (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete This is actually a nondescript area of a bunch of houses and such strung out along a road on the other side of the river from Selah proper. At best it may be a sort of neighborhood but not a notable settlement unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything that I turned up, from maps to the biography of Frank Crowe, turned out to be related to the Bureau of Reclamation's 60-year Yakima Project, which someone really should write about at Yakima River#River modifications or somewhere. Pfaff's book, OCLC 49390736, is a good start and shows why it would be absurd to write about it in this article. There's pretty much nothing that I can find where East Selah is the topical focus, nothing verifiable to say in this article. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uncle G is spot on here, and that Yakima project is a thing. It seem's like Wikipedia just attracts editors that want to OCD lists into many articles. And, people just write about crap that they think is important instead finding something that is important to write about. James.folsom (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the 1930 US census showed 324 people living specifically in East Selah, and a patent application from a resident there in 1936. And this is from late 2023 showing it's still at least some sort of community, even if not on GEOLAND grounds: [17] So a populated place at least once. At the same time there are a lot of references to "East Selah district" instead of a town - but it's the same with Moxee, which is clearly a current populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find anything that specifically says there is a town. All the mentions are generic and could be talking about the residents of the zipcode by that name. Are zipcodes named formally? James.folsom (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didihat district

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

This is one of those articles about "proposed" districts that apparently never became a thing. Wikipedia is not a repository for non-notable "proposals." Aintabli (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Uttarakhand. Aintabli (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles, because they all pertain to the same problem:

Can we perhaps merge these into a List of proposed districts in India? BD2412 T 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are notable proposals. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all nominated entries. Per WP:NGEO, Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. In this case, a mention in one article does not meet WP:GNG. Moreover, we should avoid creating permastubs which will never be improved because the district never actually existed. Broc (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oskeladden Rock

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

Very limited referencing for many years. No reason to think that a named rock in Antarctica is notable. JMWt (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think, Aymatth2? Wohlthat Mountains? Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Aymatth2 has a fairly good handle on sorting out Antarctica, from prior AFD discussions, so I go with xem in this case. Uncle G (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. ~~Probably to Humboldt Mountains (Antarctica), which are the westernmost portion of the Wohlthat Mountains.~~ To Nordwestliche Insel Mountains#Oskeladden Rock. I can do that. The subject does not deserve a stand-alone article, but the information is valid as part of the description of the parent. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. I looked through various geological and environmental databases and could not find any direct mentions for this rock. There is nothing scientifically notable about this rock. Paul H. (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harasimowicze-Kolonia

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czarnorzeczka‎ in that it is a subunit of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka that is independent, but has nearly no sourceable information (population, etc.) to speak of. The only difference is that it is a sołectwo and has a sołtys and a council. However, I think this information is better suited for a table on the gmina's page (with the other sołectwa) per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka if as suggested in the nomination it is better linked to a table there. There appears to be little content available to support a separate article. Rupples (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rupples I have created that table now Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka#Sołectwa. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Also, the official spelling has no hyphen. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of traditional regions of Slovakia

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think "traditional region" is very easy to understand, comparing with Districts of Norway and Provinces of Sweden. They are districts/regions that are not regions in a formal sense (anymore). With that being said, the List of traditional regions of Slovakia looks like it used to be an addendum to another list (and checking the history, indeed it was). It also seems too light for its own list though, and the contents should therefore be mentioned at Regions of Slovakia. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. How about, since the article is dreadfully short (compare e. g. similar one on Polish historical regions), unless expanded this could serve as a separate section at Regions of Slovakia? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angourie Point

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment As a surfing spot this is likely notable. That said, the tone of the article is hugely unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An encyclopaedia article on the Angourie National Surfing Reserve could definitely be written. I can find sources for that, which however encompasses more than the point. Also note that it would be a break-out subtopic of Angourie, New South Wales#Attractions, which is fairly bad compared to what a brief search for sources on the NSR turned up, and not even at the point that a sub-article is needed.
This article reads like a tourist guide, personal opinions in Wikipedia's voice and all.
Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of flyovers in Pakistan

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

I nominated this article for WP:PROD, which was contested by editor Codenamewolf. This is a curious unreferenced list, whose individual entries are likely to fail the relevant notability guideline at WP:GEOFEAT. Only a handful of the list's entries have standalone articles, and I am not sure that reader interest really justifies a list article (though a category and See also mentions in the other flyover articles may be appropriate). I note that WP:NLIST says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

If editors can find sources that have discussed Pakistan's flyovers as a set, and save this article from deletion, that will be a very welcome outcome of this AfD.

For disclosure, there are four other List of flyovers in [X] or List of flyovers and under-passes in [X] articles (for cities or regions in Pakistan or India) that currently have a PROD tag; if it emerges that there is reasonable doubt that this article should not be deleted, I will remove those tags – or of course, any editor may do so, without waiting to see the consensus that forms here. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability. Many don't even have trivial coverage of them, and a simple flyover isn't terrible notable. Zero sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it is a navigational list and meets Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, list articles (including item lists, as well as topical glossary, index, outline, and timeline articles." There is no need to cite references when notable articles are listed for navigational purposes. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Firstly, and most importantly, thank you for cleaning the article and merging the content from the regional lists, which hopefully will allow the related regional list PRODs to go through without contest.

Secondly, I'm unconvinced by the navigational argument. With your cleaning, in the current revision, the number of bluelinks directing to flyovers per se is five (Sher Shah Bridge, Muslim Town Flyover, Yousuf Raza Gillani Flyover, Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover, Nishtar Chowk Flyover), of which four are in Multan. The other entries are either interchanges, redlinks, or redirects either to the roads the flyovers carry or the neighbourhoods where they are sited. (The linked interchanges already have a navigational page: Category:Road interchanges in Pakistan.) The five remaining flyovers are small enough in number to justify inclusion in each other's See also sections, and they could be integrated into the navigational page at Category:Road bridges in Pakistan. In my view, the principal advantage of a category over a link is that it dissuades the kind of WP:OR that the nominated article suffers, from editors unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Nor am I altogether convinced that anyone reasonably will care enough about "Flyovers in [X] country" as a category for a list article to carry encyclopaedic value; indeed, no other country has this kind of article to my knowledge. We also have Template:Bridges in Pakistan and List of bridges in Pakistan. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a lot of notable flyovers in Pakistan so a stand alone list is justified. We have to find a compromise. This list meets WP:NLIST as well. See this reference. There are many references if you do a search in Pakistani newspapers. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source you've shared isn't about the flyovers as engineered constructs per se, but a set of interviews with people who live under flyovers in Karachi. That might merit a mention in Karachi#Social issues, not an indiscriminate list of flyovers in Karachi. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Highway infrastructure like this is pretty generic, no indication that these are notable either individually or as a group. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent to which this list does or does not have a reasonable navigational purpose in light of our list inclusion criteria would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mimsville, Georgia

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

unnotable ghost town. cited to databases. ltb d l (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). ltb d l (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet more GNIS-import fake ghost-townery. The contemporary USPS directory has this as a post office in Baker, and Brimley reporting things near to the post office in 1910, which I suspect people are going to use for the usual fallacious "near XYZ" argument, doesn't magically make it more than a post office. Furthermore if USGS Water-Supply Paper 339 supported this being a town or a village, it would actually say that as it does for Newton and Elmodel in Baker, rather than more "near Mimmsville". Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment What fresh hell is this? https://www.hometownapparel.com/towns/georgia/mimsville/mimsville-georgia-classic-established-mens-cotton-tshirt/black/915912/A1?path=29821_31227_127598&ink=WT Looks like GNIS gets printed on Tshirts now.James.folsom (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete after making sure the community is listed on county page I already know that rural Georgia is not sufficiently covered by newspapers. So I cannot rely on that source. The Atlanta paper mentions it as a community a few times. This is the best mention, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-savannah-morning-news-mimsville/140827964/, it establishes the existence of a named community prior to the post office. This website lists it as a community. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baker_County%2C_Georgia. I feel like I've heard of it. But it doesn't have enough reliable sources to merit an article.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Baker County, Georgia. This appears to be another post village (but could be a poorly-attested town, per James.folsom), with some relevance to the history of the surrounding rural area (best described in the Baker County article), but there's no clear evidence for notability in its own right. Jbt89 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm getting a lot of hits regarding different recorded specimens there. A list of Yale graduates said George King moved to a farm near there and began collecting reptiles, so perhaps that explains it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete I see no reason to point this probably-just-a-post-office to the county article. It's not a notable place, and we don't have a definite character for it. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Mangoe. I really don't understand why people want to merge/redirect these stubs, when the merge target has no mention of the subject (or mentions it only as an item in a bulleted list, as is the case for Baker County, Georgia), nor any relevant section where the information would fit without being WP:UNDUE...particularly when all the information we have about this place is from trivial passing mentions in databases and gazetteer tables. That just introduces confusion and irrelevant clutter. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The merge redirect doesn't have to be that way. I was just for making sure that this vague community is listed on the county page and redirect the article there. I agree that GNIS crap should be dumped on the floor. I believe some editors also place value on all contributions no matter how useless they were. In those cases redirect at least preserves those. So, I think that's why you get that also. Another thing that's on my mind is many of these counties are not much more than stubs anyway, so if the even lesser known communities get listed there, then somebody could add a little info about each minor community. I've always thought it would be good to just list the unincorporated communities that actually exist but have few good sources on the county page with a little paragraph about. That just makes a better article in general, and I don't understand why so many editors prefer they have their own articles. James.folsom (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artesian, Washington

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

Contested PROD, with the reason being that Reference 4 describes this place as a town. While that is true, Reference 4 is also a two-sentence entry in a table, dated 1923, sourced to a letter that I don't have the means to track down. References 1 and 2 are GNIS, references 3 and 5 are dead links. Other than reference 4, I cannot find a single mention of a "community" or "town" of Artesian; several news articles from the early 1900s do mention artesian springs in the Moxee area, but not one mentions a "town" of Artesian (or even any person "from" or "of" Artesian), which is suspicious considering this place supposedly had a post office in 1900. So most likely this was just a rural post office, which by precedent is wholly insufficient for passing WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Another useless stub on a nonexistent location based on sloppy misreading of GNIS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr James H. Gano who ran the Artesian post office in Yakima until 1901 when rural free delivery, that he himself promoted, supplanted it,^{(IPC 1904a, p. 641) harv error: no target: CITEREFIPC1904a (help)} would be astonished to learn that thanks to Edmond Stephen Meany in 1916 misreading Marian McShane's handwriting in a letter and one or the other of them promoting a defunct 1901 post office into a 1904 town, here we are a century and a quarter later. Not to be conflated with the George A. Gano who had an artesian well and later went into the hotel business with I. B. Turnell, of course.^{(IPC 1904b, p. 565) harv error: no target: CITEREFIPC1904b (help)} Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

references

"Gano, James H.". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington. Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 640–641.
"Gano, George A.". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington. Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 564–565.
Meany, Edmond S. (October 1917). "Washington Geographic Names". Washington Historical Quarterly. Washington State Historical Society. 8 (4): 265–290. JSTOR 23908626.
Russell, Israel Cook (1893). A geological reconnoissance in central Washington. Bulletin. Vol. 108. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Service. doi:10.3133/b108.

delete GNIS is in fact not sourced to any map, but to another place names book, published in 1985 and therefore fairly likely dependent on 1923 book as its source. This makes the location extremely suspect. I'm sorry, but reference to it as a town in a listing is just not good enough. Unsurprisingly the maps show nothing at the location, even as far back as 1936. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The 1923 book is just a condensed version of what Meany wrote as a series of articles across several issues of his Washington Historical Quarterly starting in 1917. And Meany 1917, p. 274 attributes it to "(Marian McShane, in Names MSS., Letter 347.)". As explained on Meany 1917, p. 265 this is a handwritten letter received from one Marian McShane, who I suspect wrote an "o" that Meany mistook for a cursive "s". Uncle G (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Moxee, Washington, which is a mile away. As noted, the springs are generally described as a feature of Moxee, not an independent place. Jbt89 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Except that: (a) this is the 21st century, not the 19th; (b) artesian wells are not springs; (c) this article isn't about wells nor springs but goes on about a bogus "community" and its 1-year post office; (d) none of its 3 sentences are in fact accurate and mergeable; (e) the human-made modifications of the 19th century were in the Moxee Valley not in the small area of the city; (f) they were in fact along an 80-mile (130 km) valley that was more than the Moxee Valley even back in 1893;^{(Russell 1893, p. 54) harv error: no target: CITEREFRussell1893 (help)} and (g) the far more extensive 21st century truth, because of sizeable changes in the 1940s and 1960s, is dealt with, albeit somewhat glibly, in Yakima River#River modifications. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Agreed. For a merge to make sense there must a) be accurate content to merge, and b) if a redirect is left, some probability that someone searching for Artesian would find what they need at Moxee. Neither is the case here. Apart from the Meany book and this WP entry (and WP mirrors), there is no mention of a community of Artesian anywhere on the internet; nobody would search for it unless they came across this article first. I lived in the area for several years and never once heard of Artesian until I stumbled on this article the other day. We are creating misinformation by keeping any trace of this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  
  Re: the current year, WP:Notability does not degrade over time.
  
  If there was a town of Artesian - and I'm not convinced there was - it's notable, regardless of in what century that town existed. Jbt89 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or merge to moxee There is no mention of a town called Artesian in the local papers. There are frequent mentions of the "Moxee Artesian District" that might be what got on the map as a town.James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should add there was no mention of the post office either. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete concur with "post office out of a house" description. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the proposed alternative to deletion would help in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aguamania

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep some coverage at [18][19][20][21][22] per WP:GNG, but it isn't much. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete exclusively promotional as written. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article can be improved per WP:ATD. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent of sourcing for this article's subject would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep Like it or not, there are dozens of articles about water-based amusement parks. This is no different from all the others MNewnham (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alloa, Ontario

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

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

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

Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Cotta, Ontario, three more new articles about neighbourhoods in Caledon -- again using primary sources rather than reliable ones, and again all created at improper "Neighbourhood, Canada" titles to bypass the fact that the proper comma-Ontario titles already existed as redirects to Caledon in all three cases.
The issue remains that WP:GEOLAND does not confer automatic notability freebies on submunicipal neighbourhoods just because they exist -- they have to be shown to pass WP:GNG to get their own articles, and only get redirects to the municipality otherwise. But none of these three neighbourhoods are being shown to pass GNG at all, so they all need to be deleted, and have their original redirects to Caledon (which I again had to delete in the process of moving these pages to their proper titles) restored. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Alloa, No evidence it was ever more than just a rural farming area. Sources indicate the towns tended to form around mills and such, and I have't found anything in the ontario papers mentioning anything other than farming going on there. Most mentions are actually to Alloa Scotland. As the area was settled by a lot of people from Alloa scotland, the local papers published a lot of news about Alloa and scotland.James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Belfountain and especially Wildfield, are borderline. I want to see more discussion and think on it. Wildfield in particular has some newspaper coverage that is the kind of stuff that I view as a pause. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-wildfield/140479927/. I want to stress that existence is not a keep vote, it's reason to keep digging.James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I've read alot about Wildfield, it seems to be settlement centered around a catholic church. Currently, it is a neighborhood in Brampton. If it were me, I'd write an article about St Patricks Church and just put all the material about wildfield in that article. There is very little in the way good sources for wildfield.James.folsom (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a book from the 1980s about the church on the church's website - it would be a good source. https://stpatricksbr.archtoronto.org/en/our-community/parish-story/our-parish-history/st.-patricks-wildfield---150th-anniversary/ Also search for it's original name - Gribbin. Nfitz (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Belfountain is more well known of the 3. There's a book https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-belfountain-book/140550148/. If it's reliable and independent, then it's a good secondary source. Any thoughts Uncle G?James.folsom (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with local government boundaries in Ontario, but I think that's causing a bit of the problem here: it looks like Caledon is one of the municipalities within Peel and encompasses quite a large area of land, and that Caledon was once a township? It's incredibly confusing, but it's pretty clear to me Belfountain was a settlement/hamlet within the township - Terra Cotta, Alloa, and Wildfield also appear on a 1937 map before any of the suburban development occurred. I strongly disagree these are neighbourhoods and they look like they were recognised populated places in their own time, and in Belfountain and Terra Cotta's case, are still currently recognised as such, even though they are completely within the Caledon municipality, and therefore are okay per GEOLAND. I will note Alloa has the least amount of coverage I've been able to find, and I didn't BEFORE Wildfield, but this also should not have been bundled. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absent WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, the distinction between a "recognized populated place" that passes WP:GEOLAND for its own article and a neighbourhood or community that just gets a redirect cuts on what the place's status is today, not on unsourced or primary-sourced claims about what its status might have been 50 or 100 years ago. That is, even if they were recognized populated places in their own time, they still only get to have their own standalone articles as separate topics from Caledon if their sourcing is on point, and only get redirects to Caledon if their sourcing is less than on point. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only was Caledon once a township, the towns in question here, weren't even in Caledon township, but in the neighbouring townships of Albion, Chinguacousy, and Toronto Gore. They are a long, long way from the town of Caledon. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plus, that WP:GEOLAND interpretation is clearly incorrect - Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Belfountain clearly isn't even abandoned, and it's clearly a stand-alone place, with a public school, cemetery, and a welcome sign on the roadway which says "settled circa 1825." Wildfield specifically had a church built - Through most of the 1890s Holmes worked in partnership with Albert Asa Post, a former student of Henry Langley. Post and Holmes specialized in the sort of High Victorian ecclesiastical and collegiate design that they inherited from Street, Connolly and Langley. The simple parish church, designed about 1894, for the village of Wildfield in the Toronto Gore, is typical of their work (Fig. 1). ([23]) The church was apparently built in 1830 and then again in 1894 according to the book Catholics at the Gathering by Mark McGowan, 1992, p. 21 (endnotes), and is also in Place Names of Ontario (Alan Rayburn, 1997) but I cannot access the text apart from the fact it was first known as Grantville or Grantsville. I can't find much on Alloa apart from that it may have just been a post office according to an 1869 gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - it's wrong to suggest that these old towns are "neighbourhoods" in Caledon. Caledon was a mostly rural township, and these are villages that date back to the 1800s - even Wildfield, which was renamed from Gribbin around 1900 or so. Belfountain is very well known. This user notes above other similar nominations - all of which are highly contested. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - There's nothing of substance to Alloa; its practically a nonexistent place that hardly warrants a standalone article. Even after urbanization gets more complete on the Brampton side, it would only get mentioned in an article of the future neighborhood it's deemed part of (or the article written and submitted again if said neighborhood gets called Alloa). *:Transportfan70 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's actually the case, then the AFD should be closed, and that one should be discussed separately. I only looked at Belfountain and Wildfield (and Terra Cotta and West Mayfield) before it became clear that this AFD was very poor. Though Alloa has a fair-sized school, and at least one church - I wouldn't be surprised if something does pop if one did an in-depth search - which clearly hasn't been done for the other 4 communities that are part of, or are referenced in, this nomination. And still, the nomination basis is that these are neighbourhoods - when in reality they all 150-year to 200-year old villages. It's very clear a BEFORE wasn't done that considered them as anything other than recent suburbs Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Belfountain. Clearly a recognised and separate settlement, as the sign testifies, and therefore meets WP:GEOLAND. Neutral on the other two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment @Liz it seems like clear consensus to keep Belfountain, while the other two should be discussed further? Geschichte (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No prejudice on new, separate AFDs for those two. Though I odn't know, @Liz, why we need a relist, when it's very clear that any of them is notable - and that nominator is so far off base, that one of the two similar AFDs he was comparing this to, was an unanimous keep. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now both are keeps - though one did attract a single delete. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I see three editors advocating Deletion of at least one article so this is not a unanimous situation even now, Nfitz. I was going to relist this discussion again but after your remarks, I'll sit out of this and let another admin or editor take over the future of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Lets quit being so nasty with other editors, Notability is based on consensus and is an art not a science. If you read WP:GNG in it's strictest interpretation, these would get deleted. This process exists so that editors can seek input on articles of questionable notability (which these are BTW). If the editor had submitted New York, NY to AFD, you could give 'em a little crap for it. We should just let the processes work and stop acting like AFD is some kind of witch hunt.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In itself yes, but if you submit New York as an AFD, a few days after submitting Chicago and Boston, both of which were heading to obvious keeps, there is a problem. That said, a witch hunt wasn't my intent. The failure of those AFDs, which in my mind are for locations slightly and significantly less notable than Belfountain, are relevant to this discussion. Wildfield seemed to have enough references to it when I checked, and at least Alloa appears on old maps, unlike West Mayfield - though I've not researched Alloa; the AFD fails with Belfountain. Grouping well-known villages with lesser-known villages doesn't work, and there's no prejudice against listing Alloa separately. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I wasn't trying to single you out Nfitz, I should have stated that at the outset. That's why I didn't indent, I thought that was obvious. I just see all these editors lashing out because they see an affront that may just be another editor trying to do something useful. Just a general call for some inclusion and understanding. is all. James.folsom (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough - and wise words. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brzozowo-Kolonia

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, included in TERYT and OSM as a separate unit, but is actually a sub-unit of Brzozowo per GUS and Geoportal. I also can't find anything on it besides a barn fire. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - WP:GEOLAND only raises a presumption of notability for legal recognised populated places, not individual buildings (these fall under WP:NBUILDING) or individual farms (those fall under WP:NCORP). The location given in the article is simply that of Brzozowo. There is no evidence here that this is anything but a farm in Brzozowo. Even if it were to be shown to be more than just a farm, the presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND is rebutable by showing that the place likely is not and never has been notable, and searching shows this to be the case - nothing exists describing this place. Additionally WP:NOPAGE is clear that there is no need for this page even if some kind of coverage could be found - it would simply be redirected to Brzozowo.

This article is one of tens of thousands created by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski. There was no checking at all of the data before the article was created. Many, many of these articles have the wrong name, wrong location, and wrong location-type in them. FOARP (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Colony/kolonia". Weird. @Stok @Malarz pl _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar as Czarnorzeczka. Brzozowo-Kolonia is standalone kolonia (one of polish types of localities, usually smaller then village), listed in SIMC database, PRNG database and Dziennik Ustaw (Polish Journal of Laws). So it's a "legal recognised populated place" as described in WP:GEOLAND. Malarz pl (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) A Kolonia is not a "standalone" community but an extension of another community (in this case, very obviously of Brzozowo as indicated by the name). It is also not a village, since that would be a wies.

2) The location given in this article is that of Brzozowo, not any other place. Whilst an empty field some distance from Brzozowo is labelled "Brzozowo-Kolonia" in GMaps, the farms around this location all have postal addresses in Brzozowo. Where is Brzozowo-Kolonia? Who lives there?

3) "Legal recognition" is not simply being listed on a database. It requires some empowerment, some status, being conferred on the populated place.

4) If the place is populated, then what is its population? And if the Polish census does not collect population data for it, then isn't this a rather strong indicator that it isn't notable?

5) GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, it does not give automatic and unchallengeable notability. In this case the presumption can be rebutted just by pointing out that its very name indicates that it is an extension of another community.

5) Even if GEOLAND is passed, WP:NOPAGE is clear about what to do with a locality about which we have essentially nothing to write - we would simply redirect it to Brzozowo. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County ~~Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka,~~ as an AtD. It's the name of a solectwo (a ward and/or a legally recognised settlement) with council representation and councillors per this list, so people live there:[24]. Rupples (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Another possible redirect is to Brzozowo, Sokółka County, the neighbouring settlement, which is also listed as a solectwo. Brzozowo, Sokółka County gives population figures. If they include Brzozowo-Kolonia this may make for a better target, but do they? Rupples (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rupples Yes, the population figures of Brzozowo contain the kolonia as well, I just need to correct the presentation of this on Brzozowo's page. Because of how the census areas work (as mentioned in the Czarnorzeczka discussion), it may be best to create a templated footnote. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I'm seeing this as a rural hinterland to the village of Brzozowo, although the village itself is rural. Better the two articles are tied together. Rupples (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not clear on which article should get the redirect to or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I still side with deletion as a more simple solution - I don't particularly buy WP:CHEAP in this case since for a mass-creation problem it turns out to be anything but cheap to redirect hundreds/thousands of articles rather than deleting them which is far more straight-forward. Kotbot created tens of thousands of these articles without any checking whatsoever, it is misguided to think the solution to that is to redirect them one-by-one when that would take decades to complete.

However, like I said in my original !vote, if a redirect is warranted, it should be to Brzozowo, Sokółka County which it is straight-forwardly an extension of according to its name. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FOARP, do you know for certain that the editor running Kotbot made no after creation checks? Didn't the bot have to go through an approval process? Rupples (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rupples - As far as I can tell there were no checks. The entire thing was premised on the idea that the PL Wiki articles used as a source for the data in them were already correct. As far as the approvals process went, it did not appear to involve any actual checking of the articles, merely people vouching for the bot.

Realistically speaking, the articles were created at such a rate that no-one could have been checking more than a tiny fraction of them. In a 48-hour period centred around the creation-time of the article we're discussing here (18:43, 31 July 2008) Kotbot created more than 5,000 articles, does anyone really think Kotniski was checking these? FOARP (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I think it makes most sense to delete this as it is legally distinct from Brzozowo, Sokółka County despite the name. A redirect could cause confusion. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ilawa-Kataka you should strike the above !vote because as nominator your !vote is already counted as delete, so this is in effect a second !vote. How does the redirect cause confusion? Surely, now it's been ascertained that the official population figure is the total for Brzozowo, Sokółka County and Brzozowo-Kolonia combined it makes sense to combine the two articles and put a note in the Brzozowo, Sokółka County article explaining that neighbouring Brzozowo-Kolonia is also recognised as a sołectwo and its population is included in the figures shown. Rupples (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rupples Neither significant nor likely confusion, admittedly, but it is possible it could lead someone to believe they were legally the same entity (rather than just in the same census area). Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to implement the proposed alternative to deletion would be helpful in achieving consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geography[edit]

Geography-related proposed deletions[edit]