Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,365,619 edits
Line 20: Line 20:
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guthrie,_Arizona_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guthrie,_Arizona_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Etna,_Utah}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Etna,_Utah}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_settlements_in_Bedfordshire_by_population}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadow Oaks, Florida}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emmet,_North_Dakota}}

Revision as of 05:59, 15 February 2022

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Geography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Geography

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton

Le Breuil-sous-Argenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This commune no longer exists and does not seems to itself be notable. There were a number of news articles from Ouest France that seem to mention the towns name but it doesn't seem to bring notability to the town itself. TartarTorte 02:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda, Tasmania

Golconda, Tasmania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; many partial mentions, but no significant coverage. All sources currently provided are primary sources.

It is possible though not certain that it meets WP:GEOLAND, but if it does that only provides a presumption of notability, and in this case that presumption appears to be false. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is surely a joke. The reasons given would apply to many small localities in Australia. I and many others have invested thousands of hours to ensure that these articles contain as much useful information as is contained in the sources available to us. For our readers they serve to flesh out their knowledge and understanding of this vast country, which is surely one of the roles of an encyclopedia. Downsize43 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is all the information that exists on it, then it cannot be kept, as it violates WP:PRIMARY; Do not base an entire article on primary sources. The reader also doesn't benefit from such articles; they would be better off if redirected to a list of localities. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How can references 2 and 4 be regarded as primary sources? They are summaries of information in primary sources provided by the Tasmanian Government, therefore secondary in my book. Reference 1 is also a summary of information from the primary sources, the census forms completed by households. Downsize43 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try this search. Possibly more than 7,000? 49.195.44.164 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know why some people rave about Trove while others not so. Where does one find guidance to construct such a query? Downsize43 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to your talk. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BEFORE? what BEFORE? Also, I agree with Downsize43 on the question of primary sources. The nom's interpretation of WP:PRIMARY here is adrift. Ingratis (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it does pass being legally recognized per GEOLAND as I don't think a place has to be a municipality or district. An official figure from a census seems to pass this and anyway it can be seen from GeoNames that there is also a settlement by this name. Also it has coverage from an independent source about its name origin which I think is also a good indicator of notability. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded in an attempt to complete the list. This index is more narrow in scope than other country indices, focusing only on the core topics such as major cities, but Outline of Uzbekistan already serves that purpose. There are nearly 40,000 articles in the Category:Uzbekistan tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing a few hours early per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm Talk 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Suriname-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This type of list can be considered depecrated, per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD. The community does not need an index to get "access" to Surinamese topics. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge as it has been nearly a month. Consensus around these places is currently clear as mud. Star Mississippi 02:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe, Kansas

AfDs for this article:
Monroe, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing has changed about this except our understanding of the sources and the situation. This is still nothing more than a 4th class post office established in a no longer extant building, with the usual evidences thereof. I will not be surprised if evidence is produced of people "from" Monroe, or things "near" Monroe, but when it comes down to it GNIS no longer lists this place, and I really must insist on direct evidence of a "settlement" before acceding to the existence of this place as a notable thing. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ) When the GNIS website was overhauled within the last year, it appears they removed ghost towns from the GNIS database. Just because we can't currently see that information doesn't automatically mean the community didn't exist in the prior GNIS database. Recently, I have been updating GNIS links for communities in western Kansas (working my way eastward), thus I'm very much aware of this problem. Some obvious notable ghost towns with plenty of other sources were removed from the GNIS list too. I haven't contacted GNIS yet to ask if they plan to restore this information, but it is on my TODO list.
    2. ) The google satellite view shows a nearby "Monroe Cemetery", which is enough proof for me this community likely existed.
  • KEEP • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The database entry record 482325 said "locale". That does not mean a community. Please read the GNIS feature class definitions. "locale" in record 482325 gave zero support from the database for a claim of a settlement, and a "ghost town" has not been removed, since the database record wasn't supporting the claim of a ghost town in the first place. It was claiming a "locale" and it even tagged it as "(historical)" Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • GNIS deletes a whole load of dubious locations and this doesn't cause any doubts in your mind that these places may not have actually existed? FOARP (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep subject meets WP:GEOLAND. see discussion at previous AFD. The nominator states that the only thing that has changed is "our understanding of the sources and the situation" but doesn't provide what actually has changed or its impact. Since nothing else has changed, the previous outcome should stand. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kansas Historical Society says post-office from 1871–1886, and Lippincott's from the time says:
    • "Monroe". Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World: A Complete Pronouncing Gazetteer Or Geographical Dictionary of the World. J.B. Lippincott & Company. 1880. p. 1454. a post-office of Lincoln co., Kansas about 25 miles W.N.W. of Salina
  • Lippincott's says "post-village" or "post-hamlet" for settlements. "post-office" means no more than just a post-office. This puts the lie to "is a ghost town". It never was a town, and no source supports this being a settlement of any kind.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was an operating post office there from 1871 to 1886, and the school district operated from 1873 until 1939. It's a place of note for history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that it isn't. If it were, people would be pointing to the history books that it is noted in, like Elizabeth N. Barr's History of Lincoln County, Kansas, which doesn't. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since when have post offices been automatically notable? GNIS is also not reliable for whether a place is populated or not - and especially GNIS NEVER had a designation for "ghost towns". There is no actual evidence cited here of the existence of "ghost town" which is what this article is supposed to be about. If people want to make this article about the school district, well, they should go ahead and do so (though there's no coverage really of it), but the existence of a school district does not automatically mean there was a community with the same name. Schools can be anywhere, even outside a community. Obviously Google Maps is not a reliable source, and a cemetery does not automatically presuppose the existence of a community.

    I feel we're in the same situation we've been in on a few of these, with Keep !voters simply asserting that a community exists or existed based on zero actual evidence of an actual community. If there was or is a community, rather than disparate farms that used a particular post office, then that should be easy to evidence and we shouldn't be using things like the name of a cemetery on Google maps, or the existence of a school district at one point, to demonstrate it. You would expect, as an absolute minimum, reliable and independent coverage about that community in local press. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've made some additions including the history of the school, and added an 1883 county map which lists Monroe.[1] I've never been a fan of the mechanical way we seem to use "ghost town" nowadays. Monroe is probably best described as a former rural community. Due to the school and post office it had a rural identity as a community separate from other areas, thus the existence of the cemetery and mentions of weddings, funerals, and people residing in Monroe primarily in the 1870s and 1880s. There's enough to support the existence of this community sufficient to have an article. I think my view of notability for these articles is more broad than the nominator, who does do good work finding the ones that are truly not notable. I usually leave those AFDs alone. Btw, for any interested article creators, I discovered that Abram, Kansas was the original county seat in Lincoln County.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not enough. These are all still establishing locations, but none of them say anything about Monroe itself. They are all consistent with it being a 4th class post office and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to point out that the statement "none of them say anything about Monroe itself" is completely untrue. There are multiple sources providing details and many but not all of those details are in the article. This reference alone contains details, names, and locations of three separate civic events that took place in a short period of time including agreement to float a bond and also mentions the "citizens of Monroe" -- both indicators that the people in the area considered this a community at the time. While this source is cheesy by modern standards, it shows that there was some kind of interest in the community and multiple families. And this source provides historical details of the school district including prominent names of individuals in the area. Other sources include details about its phsysical location and surroundiung terrain. So YES we have details about Monroe itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of the sources:
    • GNIS - unreliable.
    • Kansas Historical Society list of post offices: Is a 404 for me right now. Even if it weren't, this is a one-line listing of a post-office, not significant coverage in a reliable independent source.
    • Lincoln county news - taken at face value this may show legal recognition. The problem is that, even if the report of the formation of a township is accurate, it appears not to have ever been acted on as no such township was ever shown on the map or discussed since.
    • Kansas State Atlas - simply a list of people showing some people as addressed at Monroe. As it was know practise to simply use the local post-office as an address, which the individual may have lived a long way from, this is not proof of a community.
    • Lincoln County Patriot 1874 - Report of a wedding that says nothing about an actual community. This is WP:MILL reportage and not significant coverage.
    • Monroe Notes: these are letters to the editor and/or community notices posted by the people concerned, not independent or reliable coverage.
    • History of Monroe School, Organized in 1873 - For all the talk of a "school district" it is very apparent that actually what is being talked about is a single school-house, with no mention of it being located in a community of any kind.
    • From Monroe - Again, this is a letter to the editor, not independent, reliable, significant coverage.
  • People really should know better than using letters to the editor (that clearly start "Mr. Editor") as source in encyclopaedic articles. For some reason sourcing standards are thrown out of the window in these Geostub cases. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FOARP, you are such a buzzkill!! (ETA: please don't take offense at my use of "buzzkill," i tend to get informally excited sometimes, i appreciate everyone's efforts here.) One of the sources I added in the past few hours shows that the county commissioners voted in 1873 to create a Monroe township -- yes, we don't know what happened to it, and its existence must have been brief, but unless you find me a reliable source that says this newspaper report is a fabrication, you are simply discounting everything that has been reported on Monroe as a community. I do not know why you and Mangoe have formed a Bielefeld conspiracy group about Monroe, Kansas, but it is very clear Monroe was a recognized community in the 1870s-1900s. Letters to the editor are not offered to prove whether some wedding occurred in 1884 or whatever, but simply as examples of people referring to Monroe regularly. I could add 50 more to the article but only used some illustrative examples. Granted, I know some editors think articles on rural evaporated American communities like this don't really merit articles, but that's a separate debate.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • More constructive comment perhaps. I just figured out what these "congressional townships" were[2] and No. 12 and 13, 6 west of the principal meridian (which is what the 1873 newspaper reports on), is what Colorado Township is in the 1878 map. So maybe there was a name change at play here.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not saying it was necessarily a fabrication, but if this place was ever an official township, where's all the things you would have expected to come with that? If it stopped being a town, then when is that supposed to have happened? Decisions can be taken and then not followed through. Notes about community events are nice and all, but they were the 19th century version of Facebook updates - people just sent notices to their local paper to say they were visiting or out of town or whatever so people could look them up - not independent coverage. On the fence about this one (and have updated my vote accordingly). FOARP (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The internet didn't exist in the late 1880s. Many of the references in the discussion speak to verifiability, which is what was demanded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Letters to the editor do not verify anything, as they are not independent of the subject or reliable. The society announcements columns found in local papers at that time (ie lists of “X person is visiting Y”) are also sourced to the people who the announcements are about and have the same issue. FOARP (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we will be in perpetual disagreement on this one. I think you're convinced that the source in question is on the same scale as a modern-day letter to the editor; I'm convinced that the source in question is a report written to the editor for publication on the topic of civic matters. Did I interpret your stance properly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think in either case the situation is exactly the same. Look at the actual news stories published in the same newspapers - you can see that the stories on the front page of these newspapers are not phrased as letters to the editor, and instead are attributed to other news sources or unattributed (and therefore the work of the newspaper staff). The "Monroe Notes" stories are instead simply a letter to the editor from someone who does not appear to have been a professional journalist and not subject to fact-checking of any kind (and describe the people attending meetings at the school-house as of "Colorado township") - it therefore does not matter how you interpret it because it is not a reliable, independent source either way. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
    1. )What is the relationship between Monroe and Colorado Township? Colorado Township is still a populated (though not legally independent) township within Lincoln county. Looking again at this story, the letter to the editor from Rob Roy describes a meeting of the electors of Colorado township at the Monroe school-house regarding the construction of a railway through the township. On the same page is a "Sheriff's proclamation" announcing the construction of a railway through the town of Colorado by the Kansas Central R.R., that talks only about the town of Colorado. These are obviously the same thing but it is obvious that in 1882 there was no such thing as "Monroe township" as distinct to "Colorado township" and probably, like Milowent says, there is a naming issue here.
    2. )Is there really a "ghost town" called Monroe? What source says there is such a "ghost-town"? We have a photo of a single wrecked building and that's it.
    3. )What is the relationship between Monroe and the incorporated town of Beverly? Did Beverly simply absorb Monroe? It appears to have done so based on the addresses given south of the Saline river being still in Beverly. This story describes the location of the former Monroe school house only in relation to Beverly, being 2 1/2 miles away from it (i.e., just on the other side of the Saline river, in what now appears to be the town of Beverly).
  • At the very least I'm dubious that this is a ghost-town that we're talking about, rather than farm-land that is just part of Beverly now, and which used to have its own school house but now doesn't. FOARP (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • my input: (1) The community of Monroe (including the schoolhouse) was located within Colorado Township. The 1883 map I put in the article also includes a dot for 'Colorado' inside Colorado township, but most references to Colorado appear to just mean the township generally; maybe the 1873 push was really one to rename the township to Monroe; (2) I don't know what our rules are on the use of "ghost town", it seems to be overused in my mind for former U.S. communities. There's no "ghost town" as a regular person would think of it. (3) Beverly did not absorb Monroe, but the Beverly zip code seems to cover what is Monroe now, that is a pretty typical thing, this came up when I expanded Bucknum, Wyoming during its AFD.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Milowent - Thanks for the reply. I think where I'm going with this is that this may actually be better covered under a general article for Colorado township. At least we can show that was (and is) a real thing that was and is legally recognised, without having to infer the existence of a community from things like post-offices, school-houses, and cemeteries, or rely on letters to the editor (which appear to use Monroe and Colorado township inter-changeably) as sourcing. We could do a simple rename to Colorado, and just add a section on Beverly. What do you think Mangoe? FOARP (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elizabeth N. Barr's 1908 History of Lincoln County, Kansas tells us outright (quoting Lincoln County school superintendent Alexander Thaddeus Biggs) that

    As early as 1867 or 1868, while still keeping an eye open for Indians, Mrs. Skinner gathered her own children, Everton, Alfred, and Bing, and two Ziegler boys, Eli and Frank, into her dugout and taught them 'without money and without price.'

    This isn't a "Monroe school". This is a schoolteacher teaching in her own house near to Monroe post office. This isn't a school district. The school districts were numbered, not named. Biggs proceeds to use a lot of numbers recounting the history.

    This isn't a "historic town" or a "ghost town", because there's no such town in either the history books or the gazetteers. This was sparsely settled (by colonists) frontier land at the time. The gazetteer, once again, tells us outright that this is a post office. This isn't a "historic post office" because it isn't actually in the history books, just in gazetteers. This isn't a school, because the school was Mrs Skinner's house.

    It's a post-office, people, like the one source that isn't being massaged and guessed at for underlying meaning outright says.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it rather saddening to see so much effort going into synthesizing something that never was, just for the sake of not deleting another Wikipedia-synthesized "community"/"area", based upon GNIS rubbish and a post office list in its initial revision, using things like the Lincoln County Examiner and the Lincoln County Patriot, discussing things like the Lincoln County board of commissioners, alongside the existence of a source that is a history of Lincoln County based upon information from the Lincoln County school superintendent; when Lincoln County, Kansas#History stands pretty much empty of anything specific to the county. One would think that the right place to write stuff, and not synthesize, would be obvious. It's even the right place to mention the post office. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, nothing has been synthesized and I find your accusation offensive. All sources have been referenced and provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be sad Uncle G! As the primary expender of the effort here, I assure you I enjoyed learning more about the former rural community of Monroe Kansas than anyone not from that area has ever had. Alas, I am indeed guilty of citing things like Lincoln county newspapers from the late 1800s, and engaging in tawdry pursuits like researching contemporaneous sources of the day! And regarding the school, there was a school built within a few short years of starting in someone's house.[3] You disregard that fact in your fervency--there was a real building, the picture i just linked was the one built in 1883 after the prior one was destroyed in a storm. But it was called the Monroe School for decades, and yes, this name was used in such terrible things as Lincoln County newspapers. There's no synthesis beyond the normal assembling of sources we do every day. Now, surely, Lincoln County, Kansas#History, is bereft of content and perhaps some editor such as yourself will see fit to expand it. I for one will be content with my work on Monroe whether the article gets deleted or not. As I have been with countless other articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucknum, Wyoming and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poplar, Iowa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barberville, Rhode Island--Milowent • hasspoken 12:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on informed, nicely civil discussion above. --Doncram (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Lincoln County, Kansas: Merge to a new section called "Ghost Towns". The section can then be populated with information from the other ghost town pages which generally have less information than this page. Gusfriend (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of "locations" that no longer exist - towns, countries... There is evidence for this historic locale, and that should be enough. Also, we shouldn't be trying to judge the past through current eyes - someone teaching the children in her barn in a very rural area has indeed created a school and a de facto schoolhouse. That it later got an official designation does not diminish what it started out as. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We rarely have kept "locales" unless there was a lot of material specifically about them, genreally in the form of articles/books that specifically address them as a subject. Also, "Name School Road" is a very common road name around here, but it doesn't imply that Name was a town or "community" or anything at all. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Man's Land, Falkland Islands

No Man's Land, Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this place does seem to exist, there is nothing indicating that it meets notability guidelines. Searching for '"no man's land" falkland' and '"tierra de nadie" malvinas' doesn't return any results for reliable sources (beside a book by the name "Tierra de nadie", which doesn't seem to be about the location) ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carpa Village, Sabang

Carpa Village, Sabang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability in question. Note that this is not a barangay, the smallest administrative region in the Philippines. Instead it is located within one, Brgy. Sabang. Google Search just shows typical listings of business located in the area and normal maintenance bulletins such as air scouring performed by the local Baliwag gov't. --Lenticel (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: No, it's not legally recognised. The lowest local government unit in the Philippines is the barangay, and like what I said, most barangays are not notable (there are 42K of them, btw). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 02:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 422

AfDs for this article:
Interstate 422 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Birmingham Northern Beltline"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr

A poster child for WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as the project ground to a halt less than a year after the previous AfD concluded, as related here. Contrary to the article and the previous discussion, no segment has been completed: there are some disconnected sections of paving, connecting to nothing. So there is no I-422, and it looks as though for now there isn't going to be; it might not even be given this name if it is ever completed. Possibly there is some record of failed highway projects we keep where this material can be used, but this needs to have gone the first time around. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to come to consensus on merger target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, failed proposals (for secession of states, for many other actions) are frequently notable and Wikipedia articles about them are Kept. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada, closed Keep in June 2021, which lists numerous proposals, some having separate articles. Because a proposal can have plenty of substantial coverage, justifying an article, and this is good IMHO because it is important for the world to "remember" and learn from the proposals. I believe that the deletion nominator is fully aware of this, and their proposal citing WP:NOTCRYSTAL is completely unjustified. Another experienced editor goes with statement that "There is no actual working road" which is absolutely besides the point.
Merging an article about a proposal to a suitable list-article can be done sometimes if there is an appropriate target to which to merge, and if the merger material would not be too much to include in the target. However List of future Interstate Highways does not sound like an appropriate target, because this proposal is understood not to be one of those. The "Proposals" subsection of that list is about, I think, proposals that are still viable and expected to become future Interstate Highways. And further note every one of the proposal subsections there links to a separate "main" article. If that list-article were to be renamed and/or other editing took place there which led to inclusion there of a section on this proposal, that might be fine and good, but still the existing separate article should be Kept because the material is too long to include there.
Suggestions above that this article should be renamed to "Birmingham Northern Beltline" sound reasonable perhaps, to me, but the AFD should be closed "Keep", and a rename proposal can be separately considered using usual wp:RM method. This discussion itself is not adequate to justify a rename, IMO, as many participants here are not considering it as the main real option. I think it best to just close this as Keep, or "Keep, obviously", perhaps with explicit admonishment to the deletion nominator and perhaps others not to waste others' time at wp:AFD. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Interstate 85 in Alabama. the history is under the redirect if anyone finds there's sourced material worth merging Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 685

AfDs for this article:
Interstate 685 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advanced search for: 
"Montgomery Outer Loop"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr

Another case of "don't write the highway article until you see the signs posted on the side of the road", this stretch of road was built, but it wasn't called I-685; it's just an extension of I-85, and I find it hard to imagine that it will ever be redesignated. Possibly redirection to a section on building this segment is in order, but as it stands, it's another example showing why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard, Indiana

AfDs for this article:
Hubbard, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case from back when we didn't know better, this GNIS spot shows no sign of being anything beyond a flag stop where the rails cross the road, if that. There are no buildings around as far back as I can go, which is quite a long way in this area. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fenn Haven, Indiana

AfDs for this article:
Fenn Haven, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first nomination came before it had really sunk in how unreliable GNIS can be, and aside from a surprising number of false hits the searching is characteristic of an unimportant placename, with one exception: this snippet which fits in with the single house visible in the oldest aerials, soon to be surrounded by tract housing and eventually demolished. Fenn Haven is just a suburban development, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep consensus is this meets GEOLAND Star Mississippi 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrie, Arizona

AfDs for this article:
Guthrie, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous nomination appears to have been an act of spite, but in reexamination I find that this seems to have been nothing more than a rail spot which evaporated with the steam locomotive. No evidence that it was a town, and the current houses nearby have no relation to the older place. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The GNIS entry says there was a post office there 1901-22 and a Wells Fargo office. this article] shows there was scheduled train service. this] shows it was a junction of two railroads, the Morenci Southern Railroad and the Arizona and New Mexico Railway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 2022-02-09T01:12:49 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant locality name. Is there any reliable reference to show that the name is in use - other than in some ancient almanac or railway timetable? Why not add a mention in the relevant county article? Silent Billy (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arcadia Publishing has this, once again. Guthie was a "town" per Chilicky & Hunt 2015, p. 19. So we know what it specifically was, rather than the generic "populated place". The GNIS description is rubbish, the sort of thing that one expects from the GNIS given how that particular sausage was made. Myrick 1984, p. 65 is clearer, giving a better explanation. Guthrie Smith was not in fact the sheriff of Guthrie mining town, but a director of the mining company. He was a Sheriff of Banff.
    • Chilicky, Robert A.; Hunt, Gerald D. (2015). Clifton and Morenci Mining District. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9781467134316.
    • Myrick, David F. (1984). Railroads of Arizona: The southern roads, Volumes 1–3. Howell-North Books. ISBN 9780831071110.
  • I found a few more sources about this mining town, and there's probably a short paragraph of stuff that one could wring from them. The population was "about 30" in 1922, for example. Pretty much nothing in the present article is helpful for a rewrite, its sole sources being the unreliable GNIS and a "hometown locator" with not a single actual history book in sight, and this article at present is verifiably false.

    Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • GNIS is perfectly reliable for the location and elevation, which is all it really sources. The fact that you agree this was a small mining town validates its existence, therefore it meets Wp:NGO. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a dramatic U-turn from where, only a few bullet points above, you were arguing that it sources stuff about Wells Fargo. I specifically said the GNIS description, which is not something that I agree with, because that description talks about a "Sheriff Guthrie Smith" rather than advocate John Guthrie Smith, as I already explained.

        And if one knows how the GNIS sausage was made, one realizes that it isn't even reliable for location data, as some locations were taken from where the words were on the map, which in some cases were just the middles of areas (with not even dot markers), resulting in an erroneous precision. Then there's what Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data relates about the … variety of sources that were used to compile the GNIS data back in the 20th century. Hubbard, Indiana (AfD discussion) is in fact a good case in point. The Hubbard farm was a 704 acre tract of prairie land, not an exact point, and we know where it was (which is not where the GNIS coöordinates, taken from the word on a map, put it) because the Haven Hubbard Home is still there.

        In any other context an article whose sole content was verifiably false would be unequivocally a hoax article. Policy is not a suicide pact, and does not require us to keep outright falsehoods in article space until someone ambles along years from now to fix them. After all, the article does not say that this was (not is) a small mining town, and since I'm in fact the first to say that I'm not really agreeing with anyone, here or the writers of the article.

        Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't have access to the printed sources, but I will accept the above assertion that Guthrie had a population of 30 in 1922 and was a small mining town. Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is this the same Guthrie that has a listed bridge (pages 392-395)? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of how texts referring to a place as the location of something are not strong references. You can look at the map shown in the document and see that the bridge is not particularly near Guthrie; it's actually somewhat closer to Two Way. And of course, it doesn't say anything about what Guthrie was. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tks Mangoe, agree, it was just me going down an interesting (for those who like bridges:) rabbit hole. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find (as I often do) Uncle G's argument persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etna, Utah

Etna, Utah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By and large the small town articles I've looked at thus far in Utah are downright paragons, but there are a some questionable ones. In this case the most I can determine was that there was a post office here, and that as a larger locale it covers a mining district. At the location, though, I find nothing. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through my usual methodology on this one. We need a source to tell us what this was, because "unincorporated community" is Wikipedia's information-free cop-out from the GNIS's "populated place". Lippincott's gazetteer has nothing. The relevant Arcadia Publishing was Topping & Ferguson 2009 which also had nothing. Finally I found Van Cott 1990, p. 131 which puts the lie to "is an unincorporated community". What it was, and is not now, was a post-office that postmaster Charlie Morris named after Etna Creek. And — lo! — there it is, in the 1930 United States Official Postal Guide. And the GNIS has it under "Etna Creek" as "stream". Yes, you may well find reservoirs and fishing on a creek.

    Checking the original 1937 History of Box Creek rather than the derivative 1996 one, the fact that this is a creek becomes glaringly evident. Yes, it was known as West Fork because that's actually a common U.S. name of a tributary of a creek before it gets its own name. Unfortunately for the "but school district!" argument, the name of the area is actually right there on page 297, immediately above the sentence talking about Etna Creek and the school. It says Grouse Creek, the creek that Etna Creek is a west fork of.

    • Topping, Gary; Ferguson, Melissa Coy (2009). Salt Lake City, 1890–1930. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738570747.
    • Van Cott, John W. (1990). "Etna". Utah Place Names: A Comprehensive Guide to the Origins of Geographic Names : a Compilation. University of Utah Press. ISBN 9780874803457.
    • Walker Forsgren, Lydia (1937). "Grouse Creek". History of Box Elder County. Box Elder County Daughters of the Pioneers.
  • Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewing the sources we have:
  • The 1996 history gives clear coverage of a settlement but this is the only source produced that does. Without legal recognition for a GEOLAND#1 pass I would typically be looking for at least one more source, but the description of the 1996 history is clear enough that I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that Uncle G's research cast doubt on this history as the 1937 history (which I don't have access to but they do) does not appear to describe the same thing. Without any actual significant reliable coverage I'm leaning delete on this one. For the avoidance of doubt post offices and schools are not automatically notable so simply showing that there was a post office or school (which can be located anywhere, including outside communities) does not make this notable. FOARP (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with the 1996 history is that having read the earlier stuff, it is quite clearly a conflation of all of the earlier stuff, that doesn't cite its sources. The more contemporary sources indicate that Grouse Creek was considered the overall area, with Etna Creek part of it, and Etna the "populated place" per the GNIS was in fact the Etna post-office, which is a building and makes something a "populated place". (GNIS phase 1 didn't really use the "post office" feature class, because the methodology didn't involve consulting the sort of things that would say exactly what the place was. Phase 1 was all about indexing the maps. If at least one building was there, it was "populated place".) Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uncle G is usually right about everything and it warms my heart to see them active again but I honestly can’t work out if they want to keep or delete this page, so a further relist for them to clarify their vote or others to chime in will definitely provide more chance of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography&oldid=1071949941"