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
Line 7: Line 7:
==Geography==
==Geography==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serfdom in Tibet controversy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terra_Cotta,_Ontario}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terra_Cotta,_Ontario}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Czarnorzeczka}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Czarnorzeczka}}

Revision as of 22:07, 4 February 2024

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom in Tibet controversy

AfDs for this article:
Serfdom in Tibet controversy (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 is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [1]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.
That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.
Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (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 for keep as GNG met clearly, especially with the addition of new sources establishing notability. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Cotta, Ontario

Terra Cotta, Ontario (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)

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario, the same editor again created a poorly sourced article about a submunicipal neighbourhood within the town of Caledon, again at the improper and absolutely unacceptable title "Terra Cotta, Ontario, Canada" in order to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
The fundamental issue here remains identical, however: per WP:GEOLAND, unincorporated communities within incorporated municipalities are not automatically notable enough for their own standalone articles as distinct topics from their municipality -- they get to have their own separate articles only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and get redirected to the municipality if they can't. But again, this is based entirely on primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in proper reliable sources shown at all, which is not how you make a submunicipal neighbourhood notable enough for its own article. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is clearly notable under GEOLAND - it's been recognised as a regional rural settlement area, it's used as a modern postmark for addresses, parliament read at least one letter from someone claiming they were from there, and there's lots of mentions of it in books. Also unlike Mayfield West it doesn't really look like a sub-municipal neighbourhood but more like a rural community a few kilometers from the Brampton built up area. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've managed to use the biggest detractor to this being kept, "regional rural settlement", as justification to vote keep. That phrase means it's rural area, not a populated place. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You remember the names of any of those books, Also how many of them are about terra cotta building material? James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The regional rural settlement shows legal definition. Also it's one exceptionally simple search - "Terra Cotta, Ontario" in Google Books brings up lots of at least mentions. I really do not like the insinuation that I just did a simple search for terra cotta building material, that's disrespectful. [2] [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry man, I did not mean that the way you took it. Try to remember I'm neuro-divergent. I was merely trying to commiserate on the subject of what a F'ing pain that name is. As to the books, I saw all of those, which is why I was hoping you were talking about something else, you got your photo book, a passing mention, and the third is intriguing but we need to lay our hands on the "slim volume". Though the fact that it's slim is not helping it's case. Also, I agree it's legally defined, but it's not legally defined as a populated place so no presumed notability. ALso legally defined is not necessarily legally recognized. Again, try not to take my bluntness personally it's just a problem I'm trying to sort through. I'm very logical, and not very emotional so it's hard. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Apology accepted, thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 15:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is maybe alittle difficult The last reference "the history of Terra cotta" is the most useful, It's premise that the village has been there since 1855. But this isn't true... If you read closely and you know something about how things worked in the 19 century, then you know that in 1855 Some guy whose last name was tucker built a mill. Any time someone does that in the 19th century it automatically becomes named (Surname, What it is) (EG; Gunters landing, lower kings bridge road, Harper's ferry.....). These things are not populated places, though they sometimes attract population and they can be very notable. According to the article it's known as Salmoville 1866. But Salmoville was just a post and doesn't prove anything, if there was town it might still have been named Tucker's mill. We already know that post office names ≠ to their location (Coburn post office anybody?). Towns really don't change names easily, so I think what really happened was that when the post office got there everyone just switched to calling it Salmoville because that's where they now got their mail. If they kept saying they lived in Tuckers mill, god knows where the mail would go. So, in 1866 I think it was a mill and a post office serving a rural area. I don't think it was town in 1891 because the post office changed names, and as I've said real towns don't change names every time some important person renames the post office. But, they started quarry operations in the early 20th century, and those pictures do look like a town, and I would expect a factory town near a quarry at that time. I'm hoping there is newspaper coverage, but it looks scant. So this is just how I interpret the references that are provided with the article.James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Found better references, that back up of the crappy ones. Any body want to strip the crappy refs and add the ones below?James.folsom (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:GEOLAND. WeAreAllHere talk 06:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • All things passing WP:Geoland also must pass WP:GNG, and in any case it doesn't pass geoland since not one person has presented any proof it was a ever legally recognized populated place. James.folsom (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not true, GEOLAND just requires verification. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hear what your saying but have no idea where you got it: This is Geoland verbatim for populated place: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. This is WPGNG says about presumed notable: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The further problem is there is no proof this is a populated place and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources.James.folsom (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Over many different geographic AfDs, all GEOLAND has generally required is proof that a place is populated and legally recognized in order to create a place about it. It is one of our lowest notability standards, because the assumption is if there's a dot on the map, there's something written about it. In practice it means towns and settlements, not neighbourhoods or subdevelopments, and Terra Cotta, Ontario is very clearly a settlement on the map. The provincial government recongises it as a settlement area (which is your proof), we have something to say about it, it's clearly marked on maps, people say they're from there specifically, the Visit Caledon website says it was "settled" [5], there have been things written about different buildings in the settlement, that's more than we need. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          There's also been a community centre there since 1862: [6] SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in GEOLAND offers grounds by which this can be kept in this state. GEOLAND only confers notability on places that are shown to pass GNG, and does not confer notability on places that have not been shown to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, GEOLAND is one of the rare parts of the encyclopedia which is separate from GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge if someone wants to do it This appears to have many refs, but two of them are dupes, and only 2 actually give any information. They are touristy in nature so I'm not sure they are independent enough. It's currently a rural area even according to the government. The one good article we have states that it is touristy and recreational since the period around 1940-1950 and that prior to that it was industrial. According to the newspapers it has always been rural, as there are no "tell tale" articles indicating a government. No town clerks or court announcements. Alot, want ads for farm work though. Many times when it is mentioned in the paper, it is said to be on the credit river, implying people might not know where it was. I can't find anything on the industrial period so I'm going with my interpretation from the one good ref that this is just a concentration of factories around a railroad station. The last ref even says that the place ended it's first life when that station burned, implying it wasn't really a population center. Regardless, even if it was a town, it's not got enough sources to merit coverage here.James.folsom (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's what the slim booklet is:
      • Zatyko, Mary (1979). Terra Cotta: A Capsule History. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press. ISBN 0919822819.
    • It's in the Esquesing Historical Society's collection for Terra Cotta.

      Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Uncle G, that was useful, though I can't believe I missed this before. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-terra-cotta-exists/140543904/ I can't be vote against any place that appeared in A Scooby-Doo episode.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unincorporated and rural, but a population center and popular tourist spot.
    https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-journal-terra-cotta-clip-one/140544880/
    https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-ottawa-journal-terra-cotta-two/140544942/ James.folsom (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So that's three primary significant coverage local papers and the book makes one secondary significant coverage. Is that enough?James.folsom (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references provided in article and above. Djflem (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Happy with the sources uncovered in this AfD that this meets the GNG, notwithstanding that it may also have presumed notability under NPLACE. Rupples (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a poor nomination by User:Bearcat. Ignoring the state of the article - there's no way that such a well known and old Ontario town should be nominated for deletion - as there's no doubt that GNG references can be dug out. It's easy to find an excellent article by little-known writer Pierre Berton in the Toronto Star in 1959, of which a good portion of the article is about Terra Cotta. There's an excellent history of Terra Cotta in The Georgetown Herald in 1988, however it is a paid advertisement - but could be used to improve the page. Among other entries is a Toronto Star article from 1992. There's also an extensive piece in the Globe and Mail in 1947 - though no where near as well written as done by that Berton guy. Perhaps not quite about Terra Cotta - but worthy of mention in the article, was the 1979 G&M piece about the Terra Cotta Inn. Back in 1873 there's a brief mention in The Globe of the Montreal Telegraph Company opening an office both here, and in nearby Cheltenham, Ontario, Canada. Perhaps there's a correlation with 1800s telegraph office and notable Ontario communities? There's no end of other articles as well! I wouldn't be surprised if it's been mentioned in the occasional book as well. Nfitz (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't do "poor" nominations. Again, the way GEOLAND works is that communities are accepted as notable if they're shown to pass WP:GNG on the quality of their sourcing, and are not accepted as notable if the sourcing is as poor as it was here. The quality of the sourcing is always the #1 most important thing, and nothing is ever so "inherently" notable that junk sourcing becomes good enough while GNG-worthy reliable sourcing becomes optional.
Secondly, a settlement in the GTA cannot possibly be "well-known" if I, a person in my 50s who has resided in the GTA for more than half my life, have never heard of it before. But that's a moot point, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria — which, again, hinge on quality of sourcing, not subjective arguments about how "well-known" something is or isn't.
If the sourcing present in the article had been even remotely up to even the bare minimum of what's required, I wouldn't have brought it here for discussion in the first place. But as written, the article does not cite a single acceptable, reliable or GNG-worthy source at all, and GEOLAND requires articles to be based on reliable and GNG-worthy sources, and confers no notability freebies on articles that aren't based on reliable and GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you must be aware, User:Bearcat, that AFD isn't done on the articles as written. Poor sourcing in an article isn't listed as a WP:DEL-REASON. And in that case one should edit a page rather than AFDing it - as noted in WP:ATD; GEOLAND neither trumps DEL-REASON nor ATD. I'm surprised that one could drive around what is now called Caledon without having spotted Terra Cotta on a road map, given that Terra Cotta has been on the official Ontario Road map for at least 60 years, and you drive right through it heading up Winston Churchill Road, north of Georgetown, and the Terra Cotta Conservation Area is very popular. You can't read an article about the recovery of the salmon in the Credit River without seeing a mention of Terra Cotta (formerly Salmonville). Though there's nothing wrong with not knowing something. And to be honest I'm not familiar with Alloa or Westfield, which appear to be more historic than current, what with urban sprawl. I'm surprised you never make mistakes in nomination - that's a reckless and dangerous approach. As for it being "well known" - well of course that's not a keep reason; but it is a reason to do a very rigorous BEFORE nominating. The nomination is especially poor given how controversial your AFD for nearby WP:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario has been going - and that's a much less historic and notable town! Please refrain from nominating a series of similar articles for deletion until there is consensus on the first AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in, if I may. I don't view the nomination as poor, but have !voted keep. Nfitz, it may be unwise to explicitly criticise the nominator/nomination within the discussion. Nominator, Bearcat has put forward sound arguments that sources are/were not good enough to establish notability. I disagree, now that additional sources have been found but acknowledge it's open to interpretation. I take the positive view that the discussion has unearthed sources that can be used to improve the article, if kept. Rupples (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that AFD, or even Prod, isn't about deletion. It's about content management. Both of these processes stimulate article improvement and speed along the demise of those that cannot be improved. It doesn't matter if mistakes are made, because none of this stuff is permanently deleted. All of it remains on "tape" somewhere, and can called back whenever. So lets just run the process and not get so emotionally involved. James.folsom (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet using the AFD process violates many Wikipedia policies - another one is WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. There are other solutions, such as redirect or merge, that solve both problems; and Bearcat knows this, as if you dig deeper, you'll find they did exactly that to an earlier version of this article, over 16 years ago. I'd hardly think that once or twice a quarter-century is worthy of stronger measures. Speaking of the Tape, you'll notice that when Bearcat started this, he overwrote the edit history of the previous version of this article, rather than merging it properly. Yes, it's on tape - but deeper than it should be for the average person to improve the article. But yes - the end situation has improved through all this. We've been talking about this for years - see WP:RUBBISH and WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has done that, User:Rupples, and in a way it has improved the project. However, I don't think tossing out ATD, BEFORE, and DEL-REASON does violate Wikipedia policy. Should we change the policy? That's something we could debate elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Come on guys lets not take these things so personal, the purpose of this is for the wikipedia community to decide through rational discussion. Some good arguments have been made, but it seems that you both are too close to the subject. This subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, but some think that WP:GNG is too narrow. WP:GEOLAND should be the way to deal with it, but editors willfully misinterpret that to do whatever they want. However you feel about it, Wikipedia actually works through discussion and consensus, The policies seem to lag consensus.James.folsom (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some (most?) are arguing that it does meet GNG. I don't think there's a clear Delete "vote" left other than the original nomination (which should have waited until the less controversial West Mayfield was resolved). Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree, WP:GNG wants secondary sources. This only has one of those, and it's locally published. But I'm not going to bother voting because of WP:SNOWBALL. James.folsom (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed numerous sources from major papers above, going back to the 1870s, User:James.folsom. they are all secondary (though the minor paper isn't independent). Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2024 (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. Despite a lengthy discussion, nobody actually opposes deletion. Whether to create a redirect to an approtiate article is up to users. Sandstein 09:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czarnorzeczka

Czarnorzeczka (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)

Briefly mentioned historically, but just a sub-unit of Zwierzyniec Mały. Appears separate in OSM though. Probably does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what some think, WP:GEOLAND does not give automatic notability to populated places. Firstly, the place must be a "legally recognised" "populated place" (i.e., have received some form of actual legal recognition as a populated place, meaning a status such as being incorporated). Simply being listed in government documents as a locality does not do this. Secondly, GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, one that can be rebutted by showing, e.g., that nothing can be found giving any details about the locality. In this case, it is not even clear where the location is from the data cited in the article, there is no population data on the Polish census, simply mentions of the location.
Even if you think GEOLAND is passed and that that is sufficient to give this place notability, WP:NOPAGE is very clear that we don't have to have a separate article about such a location - but in this case there is no actual accurate information in the article to merge either since it appears to be entirely incorrect. This is not surprising when you consider that these articles were created by a bot at a speed of 1000's of articles per day without any human checking at all. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pl wiki article exists and states this is a village. @Stok, @Malarz pl... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus While TERYT and the other document listed on the Polish Wikipedia have it as an independent village, Geoportal and GUS suggest otherwise (the former clearly showing Czarnorzeczka as part of Zwierzyniec Mały). Because the two from Polish Wikipedia are directories and the two I named more descriptive, I figured this was a case for WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE (if Czarnorzeczka is removed, I will mention it on Zwierzyniec Mały). However, this is why I AfD-ed this page, rather than PROD-ing it. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GUS BDL cointains census areas (gminas and above) and census places (these are not all legally recognized places). Map on https://e-mapa.net/polska/zwierzyniec-maly-0026956/ looks like "obszary ewidencyjne" (in Polish villages havn't borders). Czarnorzeczka is listed in SIMC (part of TERYT) as a standalone village. And has the same status in PRNG. Malarz pl (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without census data showing that this is an actual populated place, where is the evidence this is actually populated? PL Wiki has a much more lax standard for notability than EN Wiki (which is why importing PL Wiki articles in to EN Wiki as Kotbot did was a massive mistake) so the existence of a PL wiki article is not sufficient to sustain this one. Also WP:NOPAGE which is very clear about what to do with an article that essentially has no real content other than a directory listing - redirect it to a higher-level article and mention the place there, and it is already mentioned in the article Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. A place that is sourced only to TERYT merits a redirect and nothing else. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gazetteer. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polish national census counts people by "miejscowości statystyczne" (census places). Sometimes it covers one place, in most cases in covers few places (discused in pl bot request). Maybe @Msz2001: could write something more about cesus data. Anyway redirect to Zwierzyniec Mały will be wrong. Czarnorzeczka is not a part of it. Maybe is a part of "sołectwo Zwierzyniec Mały", but not village "Zwierzyniec Mały". "Sołęctwo" isn't notable on pl.wiki (so I think on en.wiki too). It's a part of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. Malarz pl (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology used by GUS when clustering actual municipalities into census places is unknown to me but it does not reflect administrative relations. In this particular case, Czarnorzeczka is one of two actual villages in Zwierzyniec Mały census place (the other one is village Zwierzyniec Mały) [7]. I'm aware of cases where two sołectwos were merged into one census place: one village having 2500 residents and other with under 100 inhabitants.
However, according to SIMC registry (the actual administrative registry of villages and towns in Poland), Czarnorzeczka is a base village and not an integral part of other one [8] (SIMC code: 0026962).
And regarding the ability to tell whether it's an actually populated place: There are ca. 55k base municipalities in Poland (ie. administrative entities that are not part of other village nor town). Out of those, only 26.5k (25.5k villages and 1k towns) has a population count given officially by GUS. The other half is clustered into census places so that it's impossible to tell precisely how many inhabitants live in these villages. Msz2001 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
50k+ "village" articles for a country of fewer than 40 million people is actually pretty excessive. Particularly if the actual proposal is for half of those to not even include data of how many people live there, meaning most will literally just be "XXXX is a village in YYYY, Poland". ~25k would be closer to what you would expect proportionate to population. The USA has a population of more than 300 million but only has 73,057 census tracts. Iran has a population of nearly 90 million and has 46,000 official villages.
GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to populated places that are legally recognised as such. It is based on the assumption that, for example, an incorporated city or chartered town, will likely have covergae in secondary sources sufficient for an article to be written about the,. Simply being included on a register does not confer any status or power on the populated place, of the kind that would make coverage in secondary sources sufficiently likely for the presumption to apply. Further, any presumption can be rebutted - it is not simply automatic regardless of any other facts. In this case, it has been rebutted by showing a lack of coverage anywhere else. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Openstreetmap shows that it has its own local boundary, but I'm not sure if it uses census boundaries or not. If a redirect to Zwierzyniec Mały is wrong, it's likely a standalone place and I'd err on the side of keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not listed as a Sołęctwo in the Gmina [9]. Leaning delete for this one, if there's no appropriate redirect, although Zwierzyniec Mały may be OK. The OSM shows Czarnorzeczka to have a separate boundary but also within Zwierzyniec Mały. Rupples (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2024 (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 11:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory

AfDs for this article:
Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory (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)

Per previous nomination, alleged micronation based only on old fandom page. No reliable sources found. Wikishovel (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2024 (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 Brzozowo, Sokółka County. There are some good arguments for deletion here, but redirection as an ATD wasn't soundly refuted. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brzozowo-Kolonia

Brzozowo-Kolonia (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)

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]

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]
"Colony/kolonia". Weird. @Stok @Malarz pl Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[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]
    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]
  • 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:[10]. Rupples (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[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]
@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]
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]

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]

  • 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]
@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]
@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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (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 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garmeh and Jajarm

Garmeh and Jajarm (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)

Not finding sources that match the article name, "Garmeh and Jajarm". It could be a duplication of an article under a different name; or possibly a transliteration issue. The Persian Wikipedia article doesn't have much more info.

Within the English WP article, in Persian (جاجرم) translates to only 'Jajarm', and there is an existing Jajarm County article and a Jajarm city. Also there is a city named Garmeh article. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No source that supports what this place is or was and the Farsi version is tagged with a proposal to merge it with Garmeh City. Also, looking at the history of the English version, an editor proposed merging it with Jajarm County [11] Another editor removed the tag with an edit summary simply stating it's notable but did not bother to add any sources [12]. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axborough

Axborough (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)

I can find no indication that "Axborough" exists. The OS mapping 1:25k has an "Axborough Wood", but not a settlement called "Axborough". The article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. (I came across it while working on the Unsourced Backlog project, where I'm going through the intersection of Unsourced and Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom.) PamD 22:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further WP:BEFORE: Victoria County History of Worcestershire has nothing except the single sentence, under Wolverley parish, "Axborough Wood on the east is a plantation made since the Inclosure Act in 1775." Genuki has nothing. Vision of Britain is offline today. PamD 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's Axborough Wood (listed by Ordnance Survey as a wood not a settlement), Axborough Lane, Axborough Edge, Axborough Farm, Axborough Lodge in Wolverley and Cookley parish but no settlement called "Axborough" even though its been marked as a hamlet on OSM (doesn't seem right). No presumed notability under WP:NPLACE. This article is about Axborough Hill for which I've been unable to find any reference outside of Wikipedia mirrors etc (perhaps it was a local informal name?); the article may be misleading so unless other evidence turns up, have to recommend its deletion. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted there doesn't seem to be much evidence the hamlets exists even though its clear the featured named exist. There is however information on the history of the name of the farm which may make it qualify as notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This further muddles things. The red dot on the map places the farm?/the hill? in a different location to the other Axborough-named features and links a farm (presumably that's what the 'Fm' stands for) to a hill of a different name. I've now found "Great Axborough", an arable field near to Wolverley in a 1796 auction notice. Various reports in connection with foxhunting do mention the name Axborough on its own, but don't specify anything further. Rupples (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I see the map is north west of Cookley not south east where the other features are. Possibly it could be related namely the name was used for a large area years ago but otherwise its concerning so probably doesn't qualify as notable. I was about to !vote delete until I did a Google search and found the far source. It probably should be deleted but I'm not completely sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article started out claiming that this was a village, in 2005. It's amusing that the real village there is Lea Castle Village which didn't exist when this article was written; and apparently it was a hospital before that.

    There was a quite extensive Axborough Wood in the 18th century, per ISBN 9780851152769 page 122, next to what in the 9th century was Wulfweardig (Wolverley) Lea. That same book confirms on page 124 that Axbourough Hill gave its name to the Farm and the Wood, and they are both where this article claims them to be, and has the important sentence when talking about the Wolverley boundary at Axborough Hill that "The adjacent land was open common waste until 1778.". I'm sure that the "spurious" charter of A.D. 866 by Burgred to Worcester monastery laid out in Della Hooke's book has a happy place in the Wolverley article if Crouch, Swale or someone feels like pushing that article back 2 centuries using this new source.

    But as for this article: All this is in a study of land charters from pre-Norman Conquest times. No village. Ever. Delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per Uncle G. Okoslavia (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2024 (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 Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California#Lincoln-Villa. No clear case has been made for why the content should be deleted, so it remains under the redirect Star Mississippi 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California

Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California (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)

Came across this guy working on WP:FEB24 and I'm really struggling to find *any* mention of this neighborhood name that's not realtor-spam. The closest I could find was a mention of a Cypress-Lincoln-Villa as "stakeholders" on a petition. Lincoln and Villa is clearly an intersection, and I suspect this overlaps a lot with something called New Fair Oaks Historic District but IDK about notability on this one. I've come up blank on Newspapers, HathiTrust, and the City of Pasadena website. jengod (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2024 (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. ✗plicit 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dasht Shuleeg

Dasht Shuleeg (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)

Unreferenced. Appears to fail WP:GNG, couldn’t find any sources except social media. Also seems to fail WP:GEOLAND; no evidence that the village is legally recognized. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 03:58, 2 February 2024 (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 Navico. History remains should consensus for a merge come about. Star Mississippi 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowrance Electronics

Lowrance Electronics (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)

Merge into Navico as an unjustified SPINOFF and for a probable miss of NCORP. Both articles are short. Can be included in totality (something always drops) without creating a situation of undue. Using AfD rather than Merge into so it will be debated alongside Simrad Yachting, another Navico subsidiary. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2024 (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 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atel Mohammed

Atel Mohammed (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 article has been tagged for unsourced since May 2008. Unable to find any citations, and there are no articles in other languages demonstrating notability (or citations). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herold, Marc W., Conflict in Afghanistan is here-to-Stay: The Taliban’s Second Coming (Durham: manuscript, Dept. of Economics, University of New Hampshire, February 18, 2004) reprinted at http://www.grassrootspeace.org/herold_taliban_afghanistan.pdf (page 10).
Until I found that, I wondered if this were a hoax. It is entirely possible that the above source misreports the name. The village name looks like a person's name. Everything else looks like citogenesis. I'll give it a bit longer to see if I or anyone can find a genuine source showing that such a village exists and is recognised. GEOLAND is a very low hurdle, but as it stands, this article does not jump it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And updating this after more searching to confirm Delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2024 (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 06:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raft River, Idaho

AfDs for this article:
Raft River, Idaho (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)

Possibly I should have speedied this as recreation of deleted material, but there is some new material here in this version so here we go again. The issue remains that this doesn't look like a community: it looks like an isolated store as far back as I can see, including when the map labelled it "Yale". GNIS fails to explain why the name changed on the map, but it's not implausible to suspect that the former Yale Store turned into the Raftriver Store (sic). Whether or not this is the place where the post office was is anyone's guess. The redirect created the last time was moved to Raft River (Idaho) per naming standards, taking the old article history with it. Anyway, we can back this up the the last version of the redirect, or we could just delete it outright. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Raft River. There is verifiable history that can be covered there, including a connection to Edgar Rice Burroughs -- see [14], [15], [16], [17] -- but I don't think it's enough to justify a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the name mashing makes it more likely that this was a post office. The USPS had a rule for a while that post office names could only be a single word, and "Raft River" being "Raftriver" is one of thousands of examples of this. For what it's worth, Spence 2016, p. 58 also tells us that Lewis Sweetser, George Burroughs, and Harry Burroughs all went to Yale University together, and back in Idaho they ran a "Bar Y" cattle ranch and the "Yale" post office, both named for it.

    This is another fictional present tense "unincorporated community" invented by Wikipedia editors spinning out GNIS records, of course. The Bureau of Land Management's 1981 management plan for the then new Oregon National Historic Trail mentions that the Raft River crossing area where the California and Oregon Trails used to meet was private farmland.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references
  • Delete per information provided by Uncle G; the new information is sourced to maps. This article is factually incorrect as there is no such community (see satellite view of coordinates), and if there once were, we need sources that specifically call it Raft River and a community (as opposed to a post office). Normally I think redirects are a confusing waste of time, but in this case, since there is actually a Raft River, I could live with a redirect to that article as a second option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This appears to be another "post village" with a general store and a post office acting as a focal point for the surrounding countryside. You can find references to the "Raft River community," e.g. on page 103 here [18], but I think the community in question is the surrounding farming / ranching community in the Raft River Valley, not an urbanized community existing at the location of the post office. I'm inclined to give it a sentence or two in the history section in the Upper Raft River Valley or City of Rocks National Reserve articles and delete this article. Jbt89 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would avoid Upper Raft River Valley. The same editor who created the article at hand created that one as well, based upon the fact that the GNIS database has a "valley" database record for the valley that the Raft River is in. (The record has feature class "valley".) Basically, one editor has given us three separate articles on the Raft River confabulated from GNIS database records. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you search for Yale, Idaho, there's quite a bit, including a reference that someone lived there for eight years in the 1880s and that there was a school there (History of Idaho, A Narrative Account... by Hiram Taylor French, p. 976, 1914), and a source from Wyoming in 1992 which says "but today there is no Yale, Idaho" (cannot access any more) and another couple records of people being born there. So maybe move this to Yale, Idaho instead? SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing so would be putting the usual post office plus school equals town fallacy into action. That fallacy is simply untrue for the 19th century rural United States (and Territories). Lewis Sweetser and the Burroughs brothers named their ranch, post office, and second dredging boat after Yale University. Ironically, the notable thing in the history books, that Clark C. Spence devotes a lot of words to, is the Sweetser Burroughs Mining Company. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • But isn't the entire point of GEOLAND to provide information if someone finds that XYZ was born in Yale, Idaho and then decides to look up Yale, Idaho? Plus there's lots of mentions if you look far enough, including a notice they were planning on constructing a sewerage system there, and a note from a recent election. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is where the every map dot is sacred dogma comes up against the hard reality that that's simply not true, either. This is two fallacies, now. It is simply untrue that a post office plus a school equates to a town in rural 19th century North America. And it's simply not true that every gazetteer entry is a meaningful subject.

          Here, the subjects one can find are (a) the ranching and mining, and the rural post office, done by Edgar's brothers with Lewis Sweetser and found in umpteen biographies of Edgar Rice Burroughs as well as the book by history professor Clark C. Spence, mining historian; (b) the Oregon Trail's final junction for the California Trail as found in umpteen sources on those, and as noted in the 1970s as almost completely obliterated by farming when the U.S. Congress decided to make it historic and put the BLM in charge of it, and decades earlier than but in the same place as the ranching at the crossing up from the mouth of the Raft River; and (c) the places in Cassia County: Almo, Elba, and Malta.

          We have Raft River, Oregon Trail, Route of the Oregon Trail, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Malta, Idaho, and Lewis H. Sweetser articles covering all this, although we might be able to wring the mining company out as an addition as there's actually a lot to say about it, and although Cassia County, Idaho#Communities has more unwarranted inflation of things into "communities".

          But what we are dealing with instead is two articles by An Errant Knight (talk · contribs), both based upon nothing but GNIS database records, literal gazetteer entries: the Upper Raft River Valley (a valley that is fundamentally interconnected with the river) and a confabulation of a couple of post offices into an "unincorporated community" of Raft River, Idaho.

          Uncle G (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          • Yes, but we also have multiple sources describing people and events from Yale, Idaho, which is generally enough to keep an article. I don't doubt for a second there should not be an article at Raft River, Idaho. I agree with the GNIS issue. I don't even mind if there is a redirect from Yale, Idaho to Sweetser as there's the most discussion of Yale there - not at the other places you mentioned. I just think there's the possibility for a valid article topic there, if someone were to do the research. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uncle G, the creator's talk page and contributions suggest they take their hobby very seriously, but the collaborative nature of the project less so. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, we do not. You have not cited a single one. And before you start citing the observation well and gauging station reports, note that they are about the Raft River. The power line that you might want to cite was for the Raft River Electric Coöperative, which is, as can be seen by the name, a utility company for the entire Raft River Valley based in Malta, Idaho and whose full official name is the Raft River Rural Electric Coöperative. There's that word rural again, telling us that this is a rural area without population centres, where Yale is no more than a post office that people might give as a mail route.

              Confabulating yet another "unincorporated community" from a post office named Yale is just as egregious an error as confabulating this article from a post office named Yale. This is a rural area full of ranches, which everyone agrees on from the Rural Electric Coöperative which describes how it serves a rural area and was founded by famers, through the Burea of Land Management when it surveyed what remained of the Oregon Trail in the 1970s and found it obliterated by farming, through to the autobiography where the person talks about his future wife having lived on a ranch with "nothing there". The detailed South Idaho Press piece pointed to below has this place's history as the site of cattle ranching with "no other inhabitants".

              All these are as well as the Burroughs biographies and the professor of mining history telling us that Yale was a post office, who ran it, who named it, and why. We really don't need further "unincorporated community" fakery in Wikipedia at this point.

              Uncle G (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

              I thought I cited at least two in my original keep. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominate this find the GOAT--> https://www.newspapers.com/article/south-idaho-press-raft-river-valley-in-1/140175446/, Uncle G you can view that as well. It is cool. It describes the entire raft river valley in detail as it was in 1929. It says that Yale was a post office, and goes on to list the towns in the valley, neither Yale nor Raft river are listed. It confirms two things Raft river and Yale were just post offices, and that post office names had nothing to do with location. They are more often named by influential people, and not for the communities. We probably should delete Yale too since it's just a post office with a vanity name.James.folsom (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the new GOAT This place actually appreciated it's history enough to write about it. If your still on the fence about deleting this, look here at this greater than 1 page article on the history of Raft river valley. https://www.newspapers.com/article/south-idaho-press-raft-river-page-1/140180273/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/south-idaho-press-raft-river-page-2/140179858/ These have additionally insight about how post offices related to the community.
    • Well, it's a nice small-town paper sort of an article, but it's about Malta, not this spot! Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or, indeed Raft River#History or the Oregon Trail further to what Jbt89 mentioned. These are good finds, but we still haven't made any more than what all of the Edgar Rice Burroughs biographies and Clark C. Spence the mining historian tell us, which is that Yale was a post office; and what the histories of the place in earlier times tell us, which is that two settler trails diverged just after the river crossing, which Raft River already mentions. it would be nice to see some of that history from those articles in Wikipedia. But we really do not need three separate "Raft River" articles, two of which are GNIS database records confabulations created by a single editor, to cover the Raft River, the Oregon Trail, and Sweetser Burroughs. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second is also really interesting because of what it says about post offices. James.folsom (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's certainly a real example of post offices just being people's houses; but I found it interesting because it described this very place as the Pierce Ranch with "no other inhabitants" in the area, with Jim Pierce selling to the Sweetsers, which connects the Pierce Ranch to Lewis H. Sweetser as Jim Pierce is mentioned in the Burroughs biographies, piling on yet more evidence from sources that this is ranchland/farmland. We're not short of stuff that Wikipedia doesn't have here, from far more detail on Sweetser through the Sweetser Burroughs Mining Company to a lot more detail of this junction on the Oregon Trail which our Route of the Oregon Trail article barely mentions; but the desire to write fake "communities" instead of the real history just because post offices get dots on maps, even to be seen in this very discussion, means that we get crap like this article at hand instead. Uncle G (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's my point ;o), these articles are a fairly comprehensive view of the history and situation of the raft river valley and they don't mention a town called raft river anywhere in it. And, and least one of them lists all the towns and neither Yale or raft river are on that list. James.folsom (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the extensive analyses done above that demonstrate this place was nothing more than a rural post office for a bit and then for the rest of its history existed as unpopulated ranchland. Nothing compels us to make a standalone article for even every real city, let alone debunked GNIS artifacts.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is about a rural post office which briefly served the Raft River Valley, and this content belongs in that article. It is not notable on its own. I have added a sentence to that article about the Raft River Bridge post office, so we won't lose much information by deleting this one. Jbt89 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2024 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California

Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California (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)

Im told this should here since it was PROD'd and de-PROD'd once already. Been trying to de-stub some LACo locations and this one is confounding me. Possibly location of a ranch/wedding venue/place they shot porn movies https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/cecil-b-demille-ranch-indian-springs-sordid-story/ ? Possibly a campground in 1910 per https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-herald-indian-springs/139873386/ ? Think there *might be physical springs slightly to the north but can't find them either (because their name is very common or...?) I suspect it was once an Angeles National Forest-area rustic vacation retreat but can't really find evidence. Long story short, don't think this meets geographic notability. (PS There were/are Indian Springs in Chatsworth, Sawtelle, and Montrose but I don't think any of them are this one.) jengod (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

References

  1. ^ page 155

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2024 (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 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palatine, Kansas

Palatine, 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)

Another post office with nothing there, this time in a triangular fields by a stream. Longer lived than most we've looked at, but it still didn't make it into the 20th century. Searching is surprisingly bad, but I couldn't find anything I could tie to this spot. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any references to this as anything more than a post office. Some sources say the post office moved across the river to Chetolah in 1888 but retained the Palatine name (e.g. here[1]), so maybe it should get a sentence or two there. Would explain the longevity. Jbt89 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a sentence on the Palatine post office to the Lookout Township, Ellis County, Kansas article. This article is now completely redundant with that one except for the coordinates. Jbt89 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contemporary Kansas State Board of Agriculture reports say outright that this is a post office in Smoky Hill Township.

    I've already fixed up Ellis County, Kansas#Communities with what can actually be supported from Blackmar's Cyclopedia and the Board of Agriculture reports as genuine towns, hamlets, and post offices. Only Rome in the list of ghost towns there has actual support from any of these sources for being a ghost town, and now has one of the sources that does. All other purported ghost towns in that article are not supported from them, in particular not from the Cyclopedia, which goes down to detail at the hamlet level.

    Connelley's 1928 History of Kansas does not have this.

    Gannett's 1898 gazetteer says "post village", but given the lack of support from anywhere else for the "village" part, I'm inclined to think that this is yet another of Gannett's errors.

    And the GHIS record that gave us this? "(historical)" in the name and "locale" (not "ppl") as the original feature class.

    This is yet more padded with boilerplate Kansas crap that is inventing a ghost town and was never supported in that in the first place by its original supposed unreliable source.

    Uncle G (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://krex.k-state.edu/bitstream/handle/2097/41188/ffb61cfefed989adac8e97eebcc9278c.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Delete, per the extensive searches described above.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think I finally have a handle on this. I found one article that revealed it was named by a judge, for his birth township. Another notice in the paper indicated that a post office was being discontinued, and mail would no longer go any further than Palatine. The newspaper is asking in this notice for people let them know where to send their paper. I don't know why I never made this connection before. People would go to the post office to get their mail, and if people needed to send them mail, they needed know which post office. So they essentially they need to say they are from palatine, so people would know where to send correspondence. It doesn't denote where they live, but where they get their mail.James.folsom (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2024 (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 List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bramblefields

Bramblefields (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)

article doesn't establish notability (WP:N) KurtsWorld96 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think this reserve's status as a local reserve is sufficient to guarantee notability. I'm not sure that it has any special protection beyond the fact the council decided that this bit of former farmland and allotment-space was better managed as a nature-friendly area. It hasn't got much history, and not much has been written about it. It just isn't in the same league as national reserves such as Wicken fen or Monks Wood, or even other local settings such as Paradise Local Nature Reserve, a location that has a long history and has been written about. In many ways, Bramblefields is served adequately by its entry in List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. But I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of deleting it. Before I found the list, my feeling was that the minor reserves of Cambridge would better be served by amalgamation into one narrative article about the lot, but this one is caught between a world of individual mini-stubs and a table that makes it very hard to expand on an individual reserve if information appears. If it does get deleted, I would not have any objection to it being re-created if someone finds useful things to say about it. Given its Cambridge location, it's quite likely it'll attract some local historian at some point in the future. If we do delete it, I'm worried someone will spot a red-link in the list article and remove it from there, which I think would be unhelpful to our readers. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. It's reasonably covered there, and there's not a lot else to say about it. Should someone study and write the place up a bit better, then editors can easily restore, expand, and cite the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. Agree a redirect is the answer here as there's insufficient coverage to pass the GNG and I don't think it has presumed notability. Didn't want to delete so grateful to Elemimele for coming up with a suitable redirect target, and I echo the points made. Rupples (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (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 merge‎ to Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mendota, Kansas

Mendota, 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)

Another 4th class post office in a house that we are pretending is a "community". It must have been very crowded in there. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mapsofthepast.com/ellis-county-ks-kansas-everts-1887.html
  • Comment: Found this 1971 article in the Hays newspaper about Mendota.[21] --Milowent • hasspoken 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas. It's pretty clear that this was just a "post village," with a post office and perhaps a general store to serve the surrounding rural area, not true town. Similar case to Elk, Kansas (also mentioned in Blackmar), which we merged into the article on the surrounding township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt89 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge according to consensus or delete I checked the ellis county papers. I couldn't find anything that disputes what has already been said. But, in april of the year the post office changed names from Halton to Mendota, the person sending in the news to the paper from Halton, wrote that the name of the post office had changed. And just like that everyone started calling it Mendota. I think if it had a community identity, that would not have happened.James.folsom (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2024 (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 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual drainage systems

List of unusual drainage systems (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:LISTCRIT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Unusual" is not well-defined and so there isn't any particular inclusion criteria. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geographia Map Company

Geographia Map Company (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)

Subject lacks the WP:ORGSIG to meet the WP:NCORP. The only source currently in the article only briefly covers this company, and I couldn't find much else beyond brief mentions, non-RS, and some letters to the editor with promotional language to boot, nothing to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Significant coverage of Geographia is available in books on the more notable daughter of Alexander Gross, Phyllis Pearsall. For example:
Additional coverage includes the following newspaper articles: [22], [23], [24], [25]. Jfire (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2024 (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. Sources raised helped consensus (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield West, Ontario

Mayfield West, Ontario (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)

Article about an unincorporated community, not properly referenced as passing WP:GEOLAND. As always, unincorporated neighbourhoods or communities within larger municipalities are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from their parent municipality -- it depends on the depth of reliable GNG-worthy sourcing about the community that can be shown to demonstrate that it has standalone notability as a separate topic, and a community that can't be shown to meet the necessary standard of sourcing just gets a redirect to the parent place.
But except for just one article in a local-interest magazine, which isn't enough coverage to meet GNG all by itself, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, like maps and content self-published by the municipal government. In addition, it warrants note that this was created at the incorrect title "Mayfield West, Canada", in defiance of MOS:CANNEIGH, in an attempt to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
So the appropriate remedy here is to delete this, and restore the original redirect to Caledon, Ontario, because this isn't the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an unincorporated community over GEOLAND. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mayfield. A small Village in the Townships of Chinguacousy, County Peel, 7 miles from Brampton, the County Town, and 27 from Toronto.

    Archdekin, F., hotel keeper

    Archdekin, P., farmer

    […]

    — McEvoy, Henry (1869). The Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory. Toronto: Robertson & Cook., p.304
    It's a shame to see a 19th century village being obscured by a 1974 housing development that nicked its name and tacked "West" onto the end. And no mention of this in Caledon, Ontario#History.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with Uncle G, using my genealogy tricks, I don't think much was ever written about the place. If you went there and got into the courthouse, or if better newspaper coverage was available it might be doable. But we'd be talking about moving this to Mayfield ontario, and writing about that. The place this article is actually about is non notable.James.folsom (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not having problems find plenty of coverage about Mayfield West - see this search. I'll leave question of notability to others. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a rather recent claimant of sourcing, this is to provide opportunity to produce the same
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep im gonna lose my mind if all of this gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielg532 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains and hills in Kirkuk

List of mountains and hills in Kirkuk (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)

Sourced only to Google searches and unreliable sources (wikis and so on), this list is basically WP:OR. I have repeatedly draftified this to give the creator (and others) the chance to correct this, to no avail. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, if nothing else. Hills are not list material, and of the "158 named mountains in Kirkuk", only two or three named ones are listed here?!? What good does it do to include two "unamed" [sic] peaks without even locations? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all no one has the time to add all the named mountains and also the locations for the unamed peaks will be added soon, I literally have them but dont have the time to add them i have tons of work to do in real life and also about the sources of the mountains and hills only being google search,if you want an actual source from a reliable site most of them are in kurdish or arabic there are pages for them on wikipedia but only on those versions also those hills and mountains are very much real (i also forgot to add that the names of the mountains are mostly in kurdish too so i have to translate them by hand,if you really want all of those named mountains listed then do it by yourself i really dont have time to add and source and translate all of them. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the amount of work it takes to track down references and statistics for all of these peaks, so your effort is certainly noted. But with all respect, if you don't have enough time to put in locations and sources, then maybe the article isn't ready for mainspace yet. I suggest draftify until all the sources and names are in place. Until then, the article is incomplete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im gonna just draftify it till 1/31 when im free. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify but needs a major rework with reliable sources. It should also be moved to "List of mountains and hills in the Kirkuk Governorate". Aintabli (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No improvements that I can see in sourcing, no evidence this list meets any notability guidelines. It's been draftified repeatedly, and the author seems to think sourcing this material is someone else's job.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2024 (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.

There is consensus that an article should not exist at this title. There are several conflicting suggestions as to where to merge or redirect to. I would consider "no consensus", resulting in an effective keep of the article which nobody seems to favour, to be a poor option. I have therefore slightly arbitrarily decided the closure should be to redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas as it seems to have slightly more support than others, but nothing should be taken as preventing editors from retargeting if it transpires that there's a better choice, nor from merging any content they may wish to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easdale, Kansas

Easdale, 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)

A blatant example of a 4th class post office not being a town, as it geolocates onto a farm that is still there. And no, redirecting to Pfeifer, Kansas is a bad idea as they are not the same place. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the Hayes Free Press of Oct 10, 1900 it makes a reference to A.N. Horn selling his home to "Jim Grippen of Easdale".[27]. A few other stray references to Easdale like that in the late 1870s until about 1900 also exist. A 1905 atlas of Ellis County shows a Jas Grippin and Wm Grippin with land around the geographical location we have for the former Easdale post office.[28] When this article was created in 2018 it was not correct to term it a "small settlement" based merely on the existence of a post office; but us veterans on these AfDs are aware that midwestern U.S. post offices were set up in many places in the 1800s that never became towns. The article got worse in 2021 when edited to say it was a "ghost town". In my opinion, "ghost town" is way over-used on wikipedia on articles on little place names like this, it really should be used for abandoned settlements that have or had some remaining buildings and infrastructure. I know Pfeifer, Kansas is not understood to be the same place (but I don't know where the GPS coordinates for Easdale first came from?), but that article's discussion of Easdale makes a decent case for a redirect there. And the 1887 newspaper mentions say the post office name was changed, not moved (though perhaps it was moved).[29]. Apparently the Easdale PO was in Rush County when it was established in 1878.[30][31] There seems to have been a border change between the counties of Rush and Ellis at some point.[32] --Milowent • hasspoken 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me add, I found this 1963 article in the Hays Daily News on the history of Pfeifer, and it describes the community as moving in 1884 to its current location. It says the former location was "in Section 25-14-17 of Freedom Township". You can find the township map of 1905 here[33]. Pfeifer is plainly now in the northwest corner of Section 36, as depicted in the 1905 map here [34]. The new location definitely seems to be south of the original location, since Section 25 is north of 36. The settlers (who were Volga Germans) first came in 1876, so it seems no surprise that the Easdale PO was established as needed in the area by 1878, and it made sense to move/rename the PO by the time that happened in 1887. "Easdale", of course, it not a German name, but a Scottish island. Before the Volga Germans started arriving in Ellis County in 1876, a George Grant is said to have brought over 300 Englishmen starting around 1872, but a "grasshopper scourge" in 1874 caused many to leave, and eventually the Volga Germans took their place.[35] The first postmaster of the Easdale PO was "Rollo A. Burnham", not a German name.[36] A "James A. Maine" took over late in 1878.[37] Looks like he was still there in 1885.[38] So it makes sense that a name like "Easdale" wouldn't stay on when a German majority took over the area.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ellis County, Kansas#History has the grasshoppers already, notice. And the coördinates come from two GNIS computer database records. The first set is the coördinates in the article at hand, which is a "locale". The second set is an "Easdale, see Pfeifer", which is a "ppl" and repeats the (different) coördinates for Pfeifer. Alas, the same person who gave us the false ghost-townery in Special:Diff/1058765611 and other articles is the same person filling these Kansas articles with every-article-has-the-same-boilerplate-junk-history at Special:Diff/721974070 and the like. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can find the second set of coordinates which matches Pfeifer at nationalmap.gov, but not a link for the coordinates used on this article in a GNIS search. The original citation upon creation was just to "http://geonames.usgs.gov", and searching "Easdale" there only leads to the Pfeifer reference you note. I was just wondering where it came from, because I've run across this issue before.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's far from original. That's just a WWW interface that the USGS set up to access the computer database. Not everything is "a link".

          Back in the 1980s, this database was available on magnetic tape and was even printed out on paper, bound, and sold in book form. Ironically, Google then digitized the books, so it's possible to find out what the feature classes, which were squashed a few years ago, used to be years ago. This has confused several people in past AFD discussions who don't realize that what's available on a WWW site was once available as this "National Gazetteer of the United States", being exactly the same thing and exactly as bogus, before the World Wide Web was invented, because the GNIS was invented in the 1970s.

          Things to remind yourself about the reliability of GNIS data: It's a government computer database that is an index to where words occur(ed) on government maps, mostly maps as they were in the 1980s. Like other government projects it was ambitious but was de-funded before the all-important fixing-the-errors-from-state-sources phase of the original plan kicked in. The "historical" records were dropped from the database tables quite a while ago. More recently, all of the feature classes, which used to make distinctions amongst cemeteries, locales, populated places, flats, tanks, summits, gaps, and so forth, were largely squashed.

          For an article that explains the rural post offices, see the one that I cited in Bulloch County, Georgia#Further reading a couple of days ago. It does a fair job of explaining, with that county as a case study, how actual history happened, and thus why a lot of this "ghost town" and "unincorporated community" synthesis that people do, in desperation at trying to flesh out crap from the GNIS, is utter tripe. Rennick has documented an entire state full of examples of how post offices moved around with people's private homes and stores that they were run from.

          Schools were the same, and there was no rule that school districts were coterminous with post office service areas. Adding them together to make places is synthesis, just as the still fake ghost-townery of Monroe, Kansas (AfD discussion) is. This is "settled" land, but these were and are rural places without population centres. "At Monroe" is how the mail is delivered and (when it's a store) the general store supplies are shipped.

          And in several of the midwestern states the "communities" were the (civil, not survey) Townships. (In Rennick's state they were the Creeks.) The Townships were the legally recognized populated places, for people wanting that rule, with census figures and legal authority. The Fifth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture doesn't give a population figure for Easdale post office, because the post offices aren't the legally recognized populated places despite what the desperate Wikipedia synthesizers and false ghost-townery writers think; nor does it give populations for the 44 school districts that it mentions; but it does say that 451 people lived in Wheatland Township in 1885, which you wouldn't know from our every-article-in-Kansas-is-the-same crappy boilerplate article on the place.

          Equally as sad as the Monroe ghost-townery synthesis is the fact that if Kansas editors had been any good at this then rather than a bland sweep of boilerplate across loads of Kansas articles we would have for years now known a lot more about the Germans from the Ellis County, Kansas#History article, and it wouldn't be lopsidedly placed in Pfeifer, Kansas (because, for starters, they didn't just settle in Pfeifer), and we'd even know a tiny bit about Hog Back, Kansas (AfD discussion) and why it's not a settlement (the German settlers choosing not to settle it), because it's all in Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas.

          Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to set out all that background info, Uncle G. Re the last point, I'm sure others have noticed this too, but I think there's a bias in wikipedia towards including more historical details in smaller geographical unit articles. Moving details into county and state and regional articles requires a more deft understanding of historical context. E.g., knowing that these immigrants weren't really Russian, as some sources may say. The bias towards calling things "ghost towns" that aren't isn't a wikipedia-only problem. Indeed, the 1971 article[39] I just cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendota, Kansas-- which is definitely a moving rural post office -- calls it a "ghost town". I understand the frustration of folks like you and Mangoe, we are fighting inherently irrational human behavior here which seeks to imbue place names with more history and meaning than perhaps they deserve. For the mercy of whoever closes this discussion, i'm not saying "Easdale" should be kept. I'm just interested in confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer (which also wasn't really a town) was.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer".
    Recognizing that not every GNIS point was a village does not mean one has to interpret that GNIS data is full of error. The choice of some locations, like Easdale, does seem to be based on local primary sources at the time the point was set. Want to feel old? Try having living memory of landmarks that GNIS points were set on, but destroyed later, and have editors thereby question veracity. Yes, any truth of a GNIS point does not inherently convey WP notabilty.
    Living memory is not RS, but I feel there is room for improvement in bedside manner. Consider that the postmaster of one of these village post offices took care of me after my mother died, and Dad would say I would call her "Mom". Fr. Burkey wrote on Easdale as a post office that served early Pfeifer, but was then replaced by the Pfeifer post office, which once "really existed", even if maybe no one in Pfeifer today can remember where it was. Careful saying Pfeifer is not a town, people live there on platted streets; it is at least a village with a beautiful Fencepost limestone cathedral. Let us be careful in the tone and words we use as we necessarily delare locations as non-nontable.
    I see ECHS maps an Easedale Cemetary. About a year ago I was going over the perenial Hays Daily News Autumn lists of 1800s cemeteries; so I might go back and look what was said about Easedale Cemetery, if anything. What I recall was that some of these prairie cemeteries were family plots and others were just where a wagon load of travelers died, and the typical caretaker was some old man with no realtionship to those buried. I make no suggestion now that "Easedale Cemetery" had any connection with "Easedale PO", or any settlement.
    Regarding any merge, I would suspect, though, that Easdale, as a topic, is closer to Pfeifer than to Ellis County. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The little we know about this place simply validates that it was a PO, and barring a surplus of Stella-Rondo-type family dynamics in the surrounding areas, no one lived at this PO.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - This was a real place, it is listed on the Kansas state Map: https://www.macpl.org/atlases/1903/Kansas%20State%20Map.pdf 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know it was a place, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎, i.e, a post office in someone's house. But if this is your inclusionist method to cause Mangoe and Uncle G to have a stroke and stop nominating articles like this, it may work.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, from a geologist perspective, I honestly enjoyed this map for the canals around Dodge; I did not know that. And I had not thought of South Fork Pawnee River as an old channel of the Arkansas. Thanks. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not a town, sure, but a known community in the papers 1880 to 1904. Several mentions of meetings at the Easdale school house, mostly a hotbed of Socialists ... (so they called my Republican grandad).

To be fair, I never knew of Easdale until this week, but then, I had never been in Pfeifer until last April. The first election I remember was Dad taking me with him when he voted at one of the sister schools to Easdale. I make no claim of notabilty, but I acknowledge the community of that time. IveGoneAway (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just adding what I've learned since I voted. Studying other of the post offices since has made it clear that in a lot cases the newspaper mentions are simply using the post office as a point of reference, and when people write into the paper from these postal places, they are simply denoting where they get their mail. It's not necessarily where they live.James.folsom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, in the sense of "in the vicinity of". In the case of the many classified adds mentioning Easdale, it is really the closest thing to an address. With the dozens of post offices in the county, I don't need to speculate that people would want to walk further than the closest one. The presence of a post office and school do not prove the existence of even a rural community, just that there were enough people around. Interestingly, the Pfeifer farm plots were originally laid out "Russian style", 44 feet wide by 1/2 mile. But across the river, more Jeffersonian quarter sections. Just another tempting suggestion of different groups of settlers. When you get to Victoria/Herzog, there is a big cemetery of hallowed ground for the Catholic parishioners and a tiny one across the road for "everyone else". I see the same thing comparing the Easdale tiny cemetery with the Pfeifer cemetery, a mere two miles apart. Well, don't underestimate the difficulty of crossing the Smoky Hill. No RS for any of this, just fascinating to me. Even in my lifetime though, there was strong coercion in rural EL CO to not sell land outside each parish membership, the same with marriage. Easdale might have been squeezed out, eliminating the need for a separate PO and grocery store and non-parochial school. I know editors have suggested that Easdale was an early site of Pfeifer and/or that the sites merged, but thinking about the parochial communities of the time, I am prone to disagree. I might be wrong. The "Meders of Easdale" were original Easdale settlers; Meders own the old Easdale section today. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I am chatting with a historian who's family founded Victoria, Kansas. As completely German-Catholic the countryside and the town is today, he had to remind me that the founding name is not. Queen Victoria directly funded the original Protestant settlement there. Ahhh, Meder is an English/Irish name and Easdale is also English. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to OP Mangoe: I propose Merge with Victoria, Kansas instead of Pfeifer on the basis (to be confirmed) that Easdale was a part of the British Victoria Colony of 1873 and was and still is separate from the 1876 Volga German Pfeifer parish. Easdale settlers were in part if not wholy British and the location is proximal to the Victoria Colony founder ranches; Grant's Villa and the "Scotty" Philip Ranch. The Meder family was among the orginal Easdale settlers, still holds the land, and is a name consistent with the colony. We have names of the Easdale settlers and I have asked for comparison with the registered British colonists. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'll go out on a limb and infer that Easdale and Norfolk were nostalgic post office names for the British colonists who concentrated their "estates" on the low ridge between the Smoky and Big Creek. The number of Victoria colonists was capped just over 200 and they had no real interest in town building, apparently. After the collapse of the British colony, the German villages had little need for little post offices or one-room Protestant schools on the prairie. What is on the EL CO page is good enough, probably. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential Merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Ellis County, Kansas based on a preference for redirecting rather than outright deleting post offices/rural areas rather than deleting them outright when usage of the name as a place can be demonstrated. I think the county is the best target for a redirect because the relationship between Easdale and the neighboring communities of Pfeiffer and Victoria hasn't been confirmed by an sources that I can see. Probably worth a line in the county article; something like, "In the 1880's a rural post office and school were located at Easdale about 8 miles south of Victoria and 2 miles north of Pfeiffer." Eluchil404 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why the county and not Wheatland Township, Ellis County, Kansas? Jbt89 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reasons, first because Uncle G had mentioned the county article above in the discussion, and second because when I made the comment I was not aware that Kansas counties had named townships with articles that might be an option for a redirect. I have no objection to the township as a target, my primary goal is to help create a consensus to preserve the limited sourced info while removing the incorrect appearance that this was ever a formal settlement or ghost town. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404 You can't find a connection between the Easdale PO, school, store, and cemetery and Pfeifer because Pfeifer had their own school, store, and cemetery (especially) and really wanted no connection at that time.
    The evidence of association of Easdale with the Victoria Colony is largely geographic. The Victoria Colony was a concentration (between the Smoky and Big Creek) of estates from Norfolk, to Grant Villa, to Easdale, to Philip Ranch. The south boundary of the Victoria Colony was the Smoky Hill River. source The Duke of Norfolk was a sponsor of the Victoria Colony. George Grant might be from the Grants around Easdale, Scotland. ... the point being, Norfolk and Easdale were born and died with the colony, not Pfeifer, not EL CO.
    @ Jbt89 Two reasons, first, Easdale was in Freedom Township, two, township boundaries in this county are wibbly-wobbly over time ...
    Here is a good map of the remnants of the colony shortly before the Easdale school and PO closed. There's that railroad that ATSF advertised as building through Easdale.
    Ellis Co Townships have been significantly restructured recently. I could dig into that with over time.
    I have some name lists now, but I can't work with them over this weekend.
    IveGoneAway (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas. Most of the above discussion of the Victoria colony seems like original (though sensible and relevant) research, so I don't think a merge with Victoria, Kansas makes sense. It has convinced me that Easdale (the post office and associated rural area) likely has a different origin than Pfeiffer, though, so any merger or redirect should go to an article about the surrounding countryside (the township being the obvious candidate), not the town of Pfeiffer. I've gone ahead and added a history section to that article and given it a couple sentences about the Easdale post office, so deleting this article won't cause the information in it to be lost. Jbt89 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might add the home of the Victoria Colonist's founder, George Grant's Villa, to the Freedom Township article. By RS, it is in Section 8 of Freedom Township. More notable to the township than either Duck Creek or Eagle Creek, and critical to the British colonists there, Big Creek clips the township (Grant's Villa faces Big Creek). There is also the Norfolk "hamlet".
    Merging Easdale with Freedom Township is practical, as the least resistance path. I don't deny that as presented the establishment of the Easdale PO by the Victoria Colonists is "OR", I did say it is circumstantial and needing confirmation, and I have not added it to any article. I do have some citations to support it, but failing a colonists name, even Grant's, on the post office application, there is no certainty that the Victoria Colony founded that PO. (Even then there is some synthysis, I suppose.) IveGoneAway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff. Adding it to the Freedom Township history section now. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, (after another 3 mile hike-think) this is the best redirect target, thanks. If I ever get into the Grant Folder in the basement of the Hays Public Library and come up witha few more solid RS, and want to change the redirect, that would be a good problem. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2024 (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 Ellis County, Kansas. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Back, Kansas

Hog Back, 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)

A Union Pacific passing siding/station, not a town: even the only real source in the article says so. Mangoe (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm sorry but I can't even imagine what you're talking about. There are three sources, all of which say it is or was a town. Even if it wasn't, deletion isn't remotely necessary or appropriate, and you could have proposed a redirect to Yocemento, Kansas or Ellis County, Kansas. Either way, you've blown past the existing sources and past the extensive plans detailed by the illustrious expert editor IveGoneAway on the Talk page. Anyway, this is not what AfD is for. @IveGoneAway: Hi. — Smuckola(talk) 06:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yocemento, Kansas. This was the name of the old railroad siding in Yocemento and retained that name when the railroad moved the siding three miles west. Reference (1) says as much, reference (2) says the former Hog Back is now called Yocimento, and reference (3) is just the name of the siding shown on a map. Content of article (including additions planned on the talk page) can, and should, be merged into the article on Yocemento. Jbt89 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having a great deal of trouble with this, as it seems to me that all these claims about moving the siding are based on original research in examining old maps, and it does not seem to me that those maps are inconsistent with the Hog Back siding never having moved, and Yocimento having been put in later some three miles east. The first map in particular does nothing to resolve the matter, as it places the siding at a spot midway between the two modern sidings; but it is also, shall I say it, a bit vague, and the other map is even more so. The other thing is that, however long Hog Back may have been the original name of the Yocimento siding, it wasn't so very long, and they have been two distinct places for well over a century. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I might have it backwards - the siding may have remained unchanged while the town of Yocemento grew up just east of it. Still, shared history and geographic proximity makes Hog Back a feature of Yocemento rather than an independent place IMO, and there are plenty of sources stating as much. Note that this edition of the National Gazetteer lists the map location for Hog Back Station (historical) as Yocemento on page KS125.

        Reference (2) in the article appears to originate from page 480 of the Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society [40], where it states that Hog Back is "now Yocemento." Jbt89 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • That National Gazetteer is merely a paper printout of the GNIS from the 1980s, note.

          In 1906, I. M. Yost and Professor Erasmus Haworth met in Hays and decided to build a cement plant at the hogback.

          — Cable, Ted T.; Maley, Wayne (2017). Driving across Kansas: A Guide to I-70. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700624140., p.85
          Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mangoe : Sorry, if the statement of seems OR, and given the curious citation, I don't blame you. I would have to relocate the newspaper article that mentions the siding relocation corresponding to the platting of Yocemento, which is the actual needed citation. From Beneke, we see the original siding was located west of the future quarry site, while the cement plant was built further east. When Haworth bought out the location and had a new siding installed less than a mile east, the redundant spur siding was moved or demolished and the name was reused on the other passing siding. Certainly by 1923 there was justification for the passing siding (removed in the 1980s at the earliest). IveGoneAway (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbt89 and Mangoe. Per the sole reliable source in the article this is Yocemento, Kansas and these are duplicate articles. Most of the article is copy-and-paste boilerplate that is in numerous Kansas articles, including the merger target. There are 2 sentences of potential merger content here. The first sentence is outright false, as it falsely claims this railroad siding to be a town. That leaves the second sentence, which is already discussed in the merger target at far greater length. There is actually zero merger to do, and a redirect suffices. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This newspaper clipping sheds the most light on the matter. https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-hogback-a-town/139276060/ I have skimmed most of the prior mentions of Hogback prior to this point in time. Bear in mind you need to read other material to get fullest feel for the story. But, Essentially before there was Hogback siding/switch there was Hogback ridge. The rail switch was built near there and the area seems to have been known as Hogback. There were ranches there when the switch was built and the local paper published news for Hogback. In 1887 the area was described in the above article as basically nowhere. The article is essentially declaring that investors are going to build a town called Nichty at the site of the switch. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that the town of Nichty was actually built, so this site should be where Nichty was. Which is pretty definitive that there was no town called Hogback there. I also read that there is ridge pass at Hogback ridge, so you can likely imagine why it's called hogback. The train probably passes through the pass there. The pass probably makes a good place settle too. James.folsom (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The background is correct. I think I can lay hands on the plat, but the town was never built. The Nichty plat was a historic hoax, like the gold rush a few miles south on the Smoky Hill River. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is not Yocemento, but a distinct location roughly halfway between Yocemento and Ellis.
    • Yes, the siding at present Yocemento was originally named Hogback but the name was later given to this location.
    • Present Hogback is not as notable as Yocemento, but has some notability.
      • While there was no platted town, newspapers record that the community did have an identity with social events under that name.
      • The first settler there was Erasmus Disney, Walt Disney's grandfather. Walt's father left there to start his family in Florida. The land is still under the Disney name.
      • The passenger station in Ellis never had a passing track, so as long as the Portland Rose section met twice daily at Ellis, the Westbound section had to stop at Hogback if the Eastbound beat it to Ellis.
      • Famous Kansas Marshal Nealy captured Coxey's Army of Commonwealers hijacked train at the Hogback siding. Hogback Becomes Known to the World. About ten years before the relocation of the name, so this would have been the earlier siding of Beneke's picture.
      • Because of the namesake geology, the name became a synonym for "poor farmland" in Ellis County.
      • A provisional plat for Hogback was created by conmen pushing a coal hoax. There is Dakota Formation coal there, but too deep, too thin, and too poor quality to mine. Actually, this, too, was at the present Yocemento site; not at the later Hogback Siding.
    • There was a Granary there as a matter of record.
      • (OR, I have found the building site. Not that it matters, I have found Valentine Sandstone gravel there as the pavement or concrete aggregate at one time.)
  • I started a DYN improvement to the page, look here for the citations of the above, but I ran out of WP time for a while.
IveGoneAway (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KSHS has a non-free image of the 1950's Hogback telegraph shack with present landmark shelter belt in the background. I'll get the link, later. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UP Shed Depot at the later Hogback passing siding, 1954, Kansas Memory, KSHS. This is the site marked on the maps halfway between Yocemento and Ellis. Natually, this siding was removed later but was there through the 70s. The homestead in the background is still there, but the barn on the left recently blew down. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Back Siding, 1922 The Thomas Disney (Walt's Uncle) homestead is marked next to the 18, coresponding to the previous picture. The school is where the community meetings were held. Note the separation from Yocemento and Ellis. Note also that the Yocemento Quarry site is now owned by the Boettcher cement syndicate of Denver, about the year they stripped the cemement plant. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading the the newspaper makes it clear there is nothing here in terms of Hogback. Prior to the building of Nichty, the place is described as not inhabited by the paper. The news for hogback reported in the paper are nothing more than the news reported from the general area hog back ridge. Worse yet, whoever was sending in the news seems to have continued to refer to the area as hogback after Nichty was built. I know that Nichty existed but haven't learned much about beyond it had a school and teacher. I don't really think any of the stuff Ivegoneaway brings up makes this article notable. Articles about that stuff should mention this place, but we don't need a separate article for this this switch and or hog back ridge. The notability policies would require either the switch or the ridge to meet WP:N which they don't. Now articles on the subjects brought up previously should mention this place, but not the other way aroundJames.folsom (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nichty never existed except as a plat map as part of the coal hoax. The hoax did not involve Yocemento. The idioms show that at the time, the community had notoriety to Hays folk. I think to get to the article about the hoax, I think I'll have to recover an account with Forsyth Library. That will have to wait for the weekend. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not defending the present article, I would just like to fix and finish it someday. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one mention of the Nichty school district that I saw. I'll look, tonight. James.folsom (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James.folsom : If you find evidence of Nichty, that would be something! Don't think school districts would have been a thing there. The 1922 map shows a school a half mile north of Hogback Siding. I would have expect it to have been called the Hogback school, but who knows.
So, yeah, notabilty is down to the Disneys and the Portland Rose. Not much for city slickers. Dad would point out the Disney farms when we drove by the Hogback Siding in section 18. Farmers on the other side of the ridge could tell when the Portland Rose had to take the siding.
The Coal Hoax and the Commonwealers will be good additions to Yocemento, Kansas, someday.
But if you redirect this, it should really be redirected to Ellis, Kansas since the later siding had only a recycled name connection to Yocemento, while it was Ellis that laid claim to the Disney's fame (there was the Disney gas station), and the Hogback Siding was integral to the rail passenger service of Ellis.
IveGoneAway (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Ellis or Yocememto is probably the best outcome, IMO. Living memory of Hogback Siding as a distinct place separate from Yocemento is dieing off, and these persons count as Primary unreliable sources anyway. There are reasons for both settlement articles to mention the location. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a blurb in the paper mentioning the nichty school district and the teacher. The town was supposed to be named after a popular politician, so maybe they just named the school after him instead? I'll post it hopefully today. James.folsom (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-nichty/139558596/ James.folsom (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nichty was not a politician AFAIK, as far as an 1880s railroad-employed land commissioner might be concidered non-political. It is interesting that this makes it seem that railroad man Nichty was in on the coal swindle like J. P. Huntington was in on the Smoky Hill City gold swindle a few miles south.
I remember driving by the school that we see marked half a mile north of Hogback Siding, site. It was important enough to have been rebuilt as a concrete structure by my time. I'll have to look through the maps tomorrow to see if there is any sign of an 1880s school at the Yocemento site.
Well-loved is a curious adjective for a railroad agent especially since the Hogback lots were the last blank spaces on his 1880s sales map.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, independent RS (Kansas Geological Survey) that Hogback is a location name between Yocemento [mile 153.0] and Ellis [mile 145.6]; At Interstate 70 Mile Marker 150.0: "A mile south of the highway is a railroad siding named Hogback, which probably got its name from a sharp bluff formed by an outcrop of Fort Hays Limestone along the Big Creek valley. [The source goes on to disambiguate this location from structurally similar Mount Oread.][1] This mention suggests that the siding was in place into the late 1980s after which the entire Kansas Pacific line was completely rebuilt and such many short sidings replaced by fewer mile-line unit train passing sidings.
The Kansas Geologial Survey has maintained the location name on its published geological maps. Geologically, the location is interesting because of the unstable, humucky Blue Hills Shale slump block terrane particular featured between Ellis and Yocemento [yes, a citation is needed for that].
IveGoneAway (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1887 Official State Atlas of Kansas places Hog Back Station just west of the future Yocemento site in Section 21,[2] corresponding with the placement of Benecke's camera in 1873. This compares with the later Section 18 Hog Back Siding miles west in the 1922 atlas cited multiple times above.
IveGoneAway (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published by the Ellis County Historical Society, At Home in Ellis County, 1991, mentions Hog Back Station (1887 atlas), Hog Back Siding (1922 Atlas), and Nitchy Townsite. The section cites the plat submitted for Nitchy in 1887 (the town was never built).
Included with the Hog Back Station section is a picture of the Luce Granary at the Section 18 Hog Back Siding. The presence of the Model T dates the picture after the 1922 atlas.[3]
The same source also associates Walt Disney with his ancestor's settlement in this township, including his uncle Thomas Disney as justice of the peace. Hogback and Yocemento are listed distinctly, "Included in its boundaries were Hogback and Yocemento..." (cf, 1922 atlas) (pages 51, 54, 67-67)
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A New York Times article mentions Kepple Disney's 1877 purchase of a section on the railroad east of Ellis.
The Wichita Beacon, 1953, Hog Back's a Town Named by Kansans states, perhaps whimsically, "Hog Back exists a an actual town, by the way." The location appeared on highway maps, maybe only because of the obvious railroad sign that stood out at the location.
A "Hog-Back Sympathy Orchestra" performed at the 1923 Fort Hays Normal School Anniversary Day celebration. (also in this 1923 article )
This 1901 article associates the name "Nichey" with the original "Hog back switch", again saying that nothing ever came from the coal mine play. Interesting that a resort is mention; in 1977 I was given a tour of the ranch on the south of that original switch site and the rancher pointed to a pile of limestone and said it was a resort.
"Mrs. Thomas Disney returned to her home at Hogback from Ellis."
IveGoneAway (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rex C. Buchanan; James R. McCauley (1987). Roadside Kansas. University Press of Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey). pp. 96–102. ISBN 978-0-7006-0322-0.
  2. ^ Everts, Louis H., ed. (1887), Official State Atlas of Kansas, L.H. Everts & Co, p. 295
  3. ^ At Home in Ellis County 1867–1992. Vol. 1. Ellis County Historical Society. 1991. p. 65. [picture of] Harvey and Lyle Luce at the elevator their father operated at Hog Back.
  • From updated research, there are specific locations to clarify.
    • "Hogback Ridge" or "Ellis County Hogback" broadly extends from Old fort Hays to Riga miles west of Ellis, any of those places might be causally said to be at the Hogback.
      • There are several notable promitories on the ridge. Modern names include "Blue Light Hill" and "Jesus Saves Hill" (incidentally pictured by Gardner). 1867-8 names include "Sentinel Hill" and "Signal Hill". My understanding in total is that these were applied to various prominances over time, including the later "Blue Light" and "Jesus Saves".
      • Reports of striking oil on the Hogback refers to the greater ridge.
    • There is one place where Big Creek cuts at the base of a bluff and that is the one place where the KP Railway cuts accros the base of a bluff. This is in Section 21. The west end of the bluff is the location of the original Hog Back Siding.
      • The 1877 atlas and Benecke picture #51 attest to this location.
      • Thomas Disney attests to this location as "Hog Back Station" in his 1880's and 1890's livestock and produce advertisements.
      • This was also called Nichty/Nichey during and after the coal hoax.
      • Circa 1907, Yocemeto was built on the east of the bluff, a half mile east of "Hog Back Station" which was removed.
    • After the removal of "Hog Back Station", "Hog Back Siding" was installed halfway between Yocemento and Ellis, incidentaly on Thomas Disney's farm, saving him 5 miles of bad mountainous road to get to the new Yocemento.
      • This name and location is attested to by the 1922 atlas.
      • That there is a 20th century location named "Hogback" 3 miles east of Ellis is attested to in Ellis newspapers.
    • Where you see "Nichey/Hogback School", that is at the old station. Where you see "Beaver Bank School", that is at the new siding.
Well, that might be my closing arguement. I improved the article, FWIW. I can see how some might think of these two locations as one place. Sadly, most of my knowledge of the distinction counts as primary. We may observe that with the 1907 removal of the first siding, Thomas Disney had to drive his wagons 2 miles further OVER the bluff to get his grain, produce, and livestock to market, so, I like to think that this justice of the peace made a deal for a siding at his front door.
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @James.folsom Thank you, for your look into the early pioneer schools at Yocemento. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn about the history of Beaver Bank School. I want to pick over your notes some day for additions to the Yocemento page. My best understanding of the schools was there was one named "Hogback" near the original Hog Back Sation location, maybe the one on the 1922 atlas northeast a bit next to the Replogle ranches (MP 296.5) just as "Beaver Bank" was at the Disney place (MP 300). When the siding was moved, the schools were not renamed. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless I'm missing something, the only sources are very minimal passing mentions of Hogback as a station or passing siding. Most of the expanded article content is WP:COATRACK coverage of land owned by the Disneys as well as a nearby school and town. I'm just not seeing anything that establishes this as a notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is the part I'm having trouble with too. The notability policies preclude transfer of notability from Disney to Hogback, I believe. Normally, you would just put all this material into the Walt Disney article. But, I bet that would be a real mess to do. Maybe an article about Erasmus Disney. I guess I like the story, but don't know that Wikipedia should be telling it. James.folsom (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that notabilty for the siding is not great. I did want to see what I could find. My original intent with this article was based on several references, which with more study I now realize have nothing to do with this specific location.
    So, it really boiled down to just the Disney connection. I think the best way to handle the Disney connection would be to just add Elias Disney to notable persons from Ellis or Ellis County. Maybe Thomas Disney could also be added to notable persons from Ellis County with futher research on him.
    There is a source that discusses that Walt did want to develop something at the Kepple/Thomas farms, but Roy forbade it. How? I think Roy had title to the farms, not Walt, but I'll have get access to the biography. But, that really doesn't help Hogback Siding, other than showing that the location is not Yocemento. But (assuming sufficient notability) Kepple's and Thomas' political and commercial activities in western Ellis County are really Ellis County's story, not Walt's. I hope that if I add some of this to Ellis or Ellis County it won't be deemed evasive.
    IveGoneAway (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a real high bar, on adding people to the notable person section. You could probably even put a lot of this in the county article. James.folsom (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas tells us that Hog Back was not a settlement, The Germans who came to Ellis County, Kansas, so misleadingly and lopsidedly mentioned in Pfeifer, Kansas but who actually settled in a lot of places all over Ellis, and (ludicrously) first written about by me in their proper place in the County article last week, two decades in in the writing of Wikipedia when this is one of the big things about Ellis's history, chose not to settle Hog Back and it "pleased so little that the men determined to return to Russia" (p.6). Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G You have it right, I think, as I would expect. The Volga Germans settled widely around the county, and if one lived through the 1970s in Hacemerica, one would think the Germans were the only settlers (KJLS Polka of the Hour). Weren't the German farms settlements? Yes, they avoided settling south of the Section 21 Hog Back Station. Bukovina Germans settled around Ellis. But, at the same time German immigrants were avoiding Section 21, the Irish Disneys settled three miles east of Ellis in and around Section 18, Thomas Disney becoming a successfull farmer and county official. From commerical advertisements one could think Thomas was practically the only patron of the early Hog Back Station until the siding was moved to his front door.
    What I am getting at is that the Disneys were closely connected to Ellis, while the Yocemento site was more separate. If anything, Yocemento was a Hays venture.
    Moreover, while footsteps/hoofprints of Custer, Cody, Armes, Sternberg, Hayden, etc., can be recorded at the Yocemento site, I am only aware of of the Disneys at the Section 18 siding.
    My point is, granted that the Section 18 siding is not meeting notabilty, the Disneys are a notable part of Ellis, not so much of Yocememnto.
    Triumph of the American Imagination repeatedly discusses Ellis, not Hays, not Hog Back, not Yocemento. Page 571 breifly adds, that besides the Missouri farm, Walt wanted to develop the Ellis farm. But, yeah, thinking about development is much less notable than actual development.
    Maybe, Merage/Redirect to Ellis, Kansas? IveGoneAway (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This doesn't seem to be a real place for WP purposes. Passing mentions in newspapers can easily be considered references to neighborhoods or colloquial descriptions of landmarks that anyone in the surrounding area would recognize and do not imply the location was an independent populated place. Much of that material is also, predictably, likely too routine and trivial to warrant merging elsewhere, although the info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement in the area should be utilized somewhere.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that it is "not notable" for WP purposed. IMO, it is not necessary to say "not real place".
The "info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement" was already discovered and covered in Yocemento where it is appropriate (IMO) and has been added to Herzog/Victoria, Kansas, as well as to a broader discussion of the German settlements recently added to Ellis County. because, ultimately, Herzog and following "German/Russian" village were founded because they gave the county a second look.
"anyone in the surrounding area would recognize" Honestly, I think the ridge's settler name only has context 1870s to 1910s, and in 1910s it was really only a revival due to the intrest in the cememt plant and related oil discoveries (maybe not, maybe all the settler's alive then still called the ridge Hogback).
However, neither the ridge nor Yocemento are referenced by the Hogback pins on 20th century maps.
  • Elias Disney is already mentioned on Ellis County page. It would be appropriate add the Disneys to the Ellis town page, as has been discussed. Walt's proposal to create an attaction at Ellis might not be notable, but I wouldn't call it routine.
  • I never proposed covering the German settlers on this page. The Germans were not shown the Disney farm, as far as I have read. This page was started from the post-1900 siding location in GNIS, not the ridge or the original Hogback station that the Germans were taken to. This siding had nothing to do with the Volga Germans, AFAIK.
Merge has already been accomplished, effectively.
Redirect? Not every name on a modern geological or topogaphic map needs mention on WP. I would redirect to Ellis.
So, Delete wouldn't kill me.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just stumbled on the Nitchy plat at the Ellis County geoportal, 1887, just like the newspapers said. The text of the plat submission shows this plat in Section 21-13-19, just west of the quarry bluff corresponding with Benecke, 1873 (east of Yocemento by 1/2 mile in Section 22). The siding this article is covering and the points of modern maps is in Section 18-13-19. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with a redirect to Ellis. Jbt89 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2024 (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 merge‎ to Penmynydd as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castellior

Castellior (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)

Castellior is just a farm, not a village or hamlet. I have walked past it on the public footpath. There is no intrinsic notability for individual farms. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, meets WP:GNG. Goes to show, you can't walk a public footpath in the UK without tripping over something historic. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are hints that there is geology to be had, as well, if it's the farm that the geologists are talking about, which I have not confirmed. Name check at Jones 1875, p. 300, too.
      • Jones, Owen, ed. (1875). "Mon, Ynys". Cymru: yn hanesyddol, parthedegol, a bywgraphyddol (in Welsh). Vol. 2. Glasgow & Edinburgh: Blackie a'i fab.
    • Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Fold into Penmynydd - I tend to disagree that this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NGEO) based on sources shared by Jfire (talk · contribs) or other references I could find - which are almost all incidental.
My view for each of the sources shared by Jfire:
  • Carr discusses the etymology of Castellior and lists three hypotheses for how this name came to be. As one page in a 300+ page book dedicated to reviewing every single place name in Anglesey, I don't see this as being a strong sign of notability. The page lists three different names used in the past for the locale, and mentions two people by name in the hypotheses for the place name, but neither appear to have published books on this topic (from a very quick search) which could help establish encyclopedic value . (I was not able as present to access Nurmio's paper, however if the core discussion is regarding etymology, I doubt the contents over these two pages can be significantly different)
  • Pritchard is very much a passing mention that does not establish notability, with four sentences in total covering Castellior, noting that someone said something was there, but with no proof.
  • Muckle is a report of archaeological excavations. Again, unless there are findings of note (which there do not appear to be) I don't see how this supports notoriety for an individual article.
  • The 'Castellior Project' is one of many that the Welsh Government supports. Many of these are named after the farm or locale where they are implemented (Pentre Farm, Cilwrgi Farm, Lower Eyton Farm, Fro Farm, Ffrith Farm... all of these were on the first two pages of listings on the 'Farming Connect' program which includes the 'Castellior Project'). Again, I don't see how this establishes WP:GNG or WP:NGEO level of notability for a self-standing article.
I feel these sources would be better used to add in the Penmynydd article a section regarding possible fortifications near Penmynydd. This section can include sourced discussion on the etymology of Castellior, the lack of findings from archaeological surveys in the area, as well as the potential link to Bryn Eryr. Shazback (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 4 February 2024 (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 Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vallonia, Kansas

Vallonia, 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)

Yet another post office, probably; there's perhaps a little bit more to this one on the maps and aerials, though searching produced naught but the Vallonias in other states and the genus of snails. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a tough one. User:James.folsom suggested this source. You'll see that some of the names listed at that source, are the same people in Vallonia Cemetery.
Also listed in the cemetery is Maurice Garland Foley. Foley's obituary said "he lived most of his life in the Vallonia and Kanona communities".
  • Comment It definitely was a populated place "https://sites.rootsweb.com/~ksdechp/directories/18841885gazdir.html". The local paper has regular mentions of goings on in the place. It's still known today according to the paper. Though some of that is because there continued to be school with that name. The bulk of the news articles are during the time the place had post office. I'm still researching. I'm almost Certain Uncle G will deposit a bunch of info here soon.James.folsom (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been neglecting Polk's for Kansas, given Gannett and Blackmar. Interestingly, Vallonia isn't in the 1904 Polk's. I don't doubt the rootsweb site, but I tend to be wary of transcriptions. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not clear to me that Vallonia was a town rather than just a name for the rural area served by that post office (and related functions like the cemetery). The cemetery is located in Olive Township, but the school is listed here as serving Roosevelt Township. Normally I'd say to merge this article about a rural gathering point into the article about the township it served, but it's not obvious to me which of the two it'd go with if it were merged into one. Leaning keep just based on that, but idk really

      Jbt89 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Jbt89: If you look at this map, and switch the map to "USA topo", you'll see that the border of the two townships, Olive and Roosevelt, passes through the town and cemetary. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a reconstructed map, based upon computer data sets. It's not actually a contemporary original map. There's an original (Rand McNally) map in the belowmentioned Report that puts the Vallonia post office (which the Report states to be a post office) very roughly on the border of Olive and Harlan Townships. Interestingly, Vallonia disappears off the map (on page 111) and from the list of post offices (on page 116) in the next Biennial Report. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have it as a post office in Olive Township per the 1886 Fifth Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Gannett's 1889 Gazetteer does not have this at all, nor does Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia, supporting the claim that this was little more than a post office that closed in 1887, just as the sole good source in the article says, and that school. They'd have it if it were a town or a village.

    For future AFD discussions which I know are coming for the Template:Decatur County, Kansas "unincorporated communities" and purported ghost towns, all of the Blackmar-verifiable post offices are in Decatur County, Kansas#Post offices.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Here's an example of it being phrased as just a post office https://www.newspapers.com/article/oberlin-herald-post-office-or-town/139274290/. There are many more examples that phrase it as a place. Jbt89 point is valid, as the way these post offices were discussed in the papers makes it's hard to tell if they were in towns or not.James.folsom (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. Seems like this is the name of a short-lived post office and of a vaguely-defined rural region centered on that post office / cemetery. Olive Township best, though imperfectly, approximates that rural area. This place is not notable on its own. Jbt89 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merger to township I've learned and shared alot about these post offices and the relationship they have with people. I've synthesized more about understanding how the newspapers deal with this stuff as well. Actual towns and cities in the 19th century are covered more extensively than these "postal communities". Examples are that a town will publish meetings minutes, public notices, town news, there will town clerks and other people mentioned in the papers. In this case as is with many others, they are mentioned in the paper in the form of letters from a self designated person. And maybe you see the occasional "Joe bob lost a valuable horse at Vallonia", They only say this because that post office is the only land mark that is universally understood, and it's where they get their mail. In one instance someone wrote in that the postoffice had changed names, and just like flipping a switch that persons letters were from the new name. This wouldn't happen if it it was a town.James.folsom (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (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. No consensus to delete after multiple relistings and discussions. Slightly lean towards keep due to the changes made, but no clear consensus is established. Closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zau de Câmpie gas field

Zau de Câmpie gas field (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)

I searched for any news, books or other info to establish the notability of this gas field. Finding none, I proposed it for deletion. This was objected to and claims of adding important info were made. I redirected it to a relevant table, and it was undone. Again with claims of adding important information. I then tagged it for lacking significant coverage, that tag was removed no reason given. The information in the article now is derived from 6 sources. Here's a summary of those: In the first reference it is mentioned once in passing and is not the subject of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. In the second reference, it's mentioned twice in passing and is not the subject of the article. In the third reference it is mentioned once in passing, not as the subject. I can't translate the fourth reference but it is clearly from 1922 and is presented in the article as a reliable source for data in 2009 and 2010. The fifth reference is just a data sheet from a financial report or something. The sixth reference mentions it in passing, but it is not the subject of the source. None of these sources nor any of the info in the WP article say anything at all about this field being important in any way. So they don't establish significance, Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance, and gas fields are not covered very well by any policy. WP:GEO wants clear evidence of importance. I assert that it is a non notable run of the mill gas field with outdated info and should be deleted not redirected. Thus I submit it to AFD. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article pertains to one of the oldest gas fields in Europe (discovered in 1914, continuously exploited since 1920), with a well-documented history, both in the academic press (e.g., Annals of the University of Oradea, Romanian Review of Regional Studies), news organizations articles (e.g., RFE/RL, MSNews), and various government and industry press releases, for a total of 10 references so far. This is not a "run of the mill" gas field; rather, it is one of the very few oil fields in Europe more than 100 years old (that's why it has references going back to 1922) and still in operation, at the center of an area that produces some 3/4 of Romania's natural gas output (itself 3rd in Europe after Holland and UK). The importance of the field to the economy of Romania is highlighted in a (restricted) CIA report from 1948 (made public in 2011), which mentions it specifically, devoting a whole paragraph to the Zau de Câmpie gas field. Furthermore, it is not at all the case that the information contained in the article is "outdated": there are several references from 2018–2022, some of them referring to current output, means of gas extraction or compression (62 drilling rigs in operation, new compressor), and fairly current (2017) estimates of reserves and prospects for further production extended up to 2029. Turgidson (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies I realized I misspoke, by omitting details around my outdated comment. So I will explain. The article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, and things like what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article, and these things change from one year to the next so they would be out of date unless someone is constantly updating that. There are literally hundred of other articles about gas fields, and even more about oil fields, that are just like this. Who is going to keep all these trivial numbers updated annually? Furthermore the people who would want this info is not going to come to Wikipedia for. It's out place, but the problem is if you get rid of it there is no article.
    • Comment It's true there are now ten 11 references, and some of them actually mention this place. None of them state this is an important gas field. At least one of the sources points out that being and old gas field is a bad thing. None of the provided references are significant coverage. I've thoroughly looked and I know there isn't any. Here's a breakdown of the claimed important coverage:
      • The 11th reference is just a trade journal reporting on agreements being renewed and only mentions this field in passing.
      • The 10th is just basic statistics probably from a financial report.
      • The ninth reference is dated 1922, and is used as a source for info from 2009-2010. I can't translate it.
      • The eighth reference mentions this gas field in passing as part of a larger important area. But doesn't state it is of any special value.
      • The seventh, is the cia report, It's the only source in this batch that even uses the word 'Important'. But it's not referring to this gas field, but a well in the field. The report is merely summarizing the gas resources in Romania and doesn't single this one out as particularly important.
      • The fifth just talks about drilling somewhere, it was a routine church announcement.
      • The Sixth, doesn't mention this gas field, and is an article that states that gas resources in Romania are now headed toward depletion due to the long period of exploitation.
      • The fourth, lists it as a gas field but has nothing else to say.
      • The third article doesn't mention it.
      • The second article just states what gas compressor it uses.
      • The first reference mentions it in passing once, in a discussion about the first gas pipline.
    • There's nothing here to establish this as a stand alone article.
  • Comment It's probably worth considering that the Romanian language Wikipedia has this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99, but it's about the village in the area the gas field is named for. It also has this article about the larger region containing the gas field https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99. Neither of these mention the gas field. There is also this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazele_naturale_%C3%AEn_Rom%C3%A2nia on natural gas in Romania. That article mentions several important gas fields in Romania. This one is not on that list. Furthermore, despite the stated importance of those gas fields there are no articles about them to be found on the Romanian Wikipedia. So you can rely on the fact that even Romanians don't care about this one. And, they clearly don't want articles about gas fields. If this is such great gas field, how come nobody on the Romanian Wikipedia thought to write about it? Maybe I should change my vote to "move it to the Romanian Wikipedia"? Since they need an article on this very important gas field. Then we'll see how fast they delete it.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagree with nomination as the article has a clear claim of importance. Probably any gas field is important, but this one more so since it has been going over 100 years. I will not have comment on notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the provided sources, passes WP:GNG, and i'd say "one of the oldest gas fields in Europe" is a credible claim of significance. Wheather sources are from last week or 200 years old dosen't really matter. Sources don't explicitly have to highlight the subject as being especially "important" to establish notability.

    "article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article." Those would be first things to talk about in an article about oil/gas fields?

    Wheather articles about the topic exist or dosen't exist in other projects dosen't matter for notability in the English WP. --TheImaCow (talk)

  • The first red flag was that the article spent more words on a general history of gas production in Romania as a whole and didn't even get to the specific subject until over halfway through the body. The second red flag comes from checking out the sources. It turns out that sources that talk about the "CENTRU region" or the Transylvanian Basin gas production as a whole, and that include this subject as one item in a list at one point in the source, have had all of the other locations stripped out. For examples:
    • The Tofan source, supporting the introduction, actually says "Transilvaniei Plain" and this subject is in a list "Zau de Câmpie, Șincai and Delenii" and not specifically singled out.
    • The Crețu source, supporting where the article body actually gets around to this subject, talks about the "CENTRU region" and on the page supporting the content this subject is merely one in a list "Nades, Zaul de Campie, Bogata, Saros, Singiorgiu de Campie, Seleus, ZăuŞăulia, Mădăraş, Sărmăşel, Cetatea de Balta, Tauni, Porumbenii Mari, Avramesti, Mugeni, etc." Yes, etc. even!
    • The MS News source doesn't even narrow down to this subject in its list. "Păingeni, Saușa, Zau de Câmpie – Saulia și, Săbed" it says. So it's not Zau de Câmpie but Zau de Câmpie–Saulia.
    • It turns out that the Romanian government's Annex A (of what document, the source citation doesn't say) says Zau de Câmpie–Saulia too. It's even in the title in the citation. So this article has even narrowed the few sources that seem on-point to a narrower subject. And it's not apparent, since this is Annex A in its own PDF file in the uploads section of a Wordpress site, who the author of Annex A is.
  • It's not that this is run-of-the-mill. Everything is run-of-the-mill and dull to somebody. It's that the world's knowledge of the entire Transylvanian Basin's gas production has been lopsidedly presented under the subject of just one of the things that most of the sources (in the article, and the ones that I could find after some looking around for geological reports and the like) just include in laundry lists of places where gas wells are, and don't directly discuss in depth as a specific standalone topic. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede the run of the mill, thing, thanks for providing another take on why this needs to go away. Much better than my explanation. James.folsom (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article now mentions a PhD thesis from 1929 (by geologist Augustin Vancea [ro], a future corresponding member of the Romanian Academy), which specifically mentions in the title "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie (Moinești)", Moinești being an alternate name for the village, briefly adopted after 1926, but then abandoned. The work is quoted in a 2010 PhD thesis from Babeș-Bolyai University by Liana Spulber, where additional context can be found. Finally, as briefly mentioned in a previous comment of mine, the Zau de Câmpie gas field is specifically mentioned as being important to the Romanian economy, in a full, standalone paragraph from a 1948 CIA report, itself based on an August 15, 1948 article in the official PCR publication, Scînteia (I tried to dig out the original Scînteia piece, but it's behind a paywall). Turgidson (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you need to actually read the policies on significant coverage, because you don't seem to understand that these sources are not significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Improvments were made to the article since AFD started. I've reviewed them and have new analysis. The article is no longer about the gas field. In order to expand the article without having significant coverage, the editor has incorporated a bunch material about Romanian gas production and gas production around the world. Only ~half of the sources, and text in this article is actually about the gas field. This makes the article longer, but not better. In checking all the sources, none of them are written about this gas field, many mention it in lists, tables and in passing. But, they are all written about another subject. None of those passing mentions single out this gas field as special. WP:Sigcov/Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance is one of the plainest policies that WP has, and according to that, even this article is no longer significant coverage of the topic. Most every mention of the name of this gas field in this wiki article are passing mentions. I will leave you with examples. Here is an example of a notable gas field, Darvaza_gas_crater. Those who want to see what significant coverage of a gas field looks like may try this: https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/16766862/perla-gas-field-offshore-venezuela-enters-production. Note that the name of the field is in the title of the source. Now as an exercise try finding the name of this field in the title of anything.James.folsom (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that no source mentions the subject of the article in the title, do you mean that in a literal sense (as in the mathematical concept of Empty set), or in some kind of figurative sense, or perhaps statistical sense? As clearly mentioned in the article (and reiterated in previous comments on this page), there was a whole thesis written by a geologist (later academician), whose title contains the words "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie" (see also GoogleScholar and click on Cite). Turgidson (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I realized I would be amenable to moving this to a title more befitting this article, now that it is rewritten about another topic. Maybe "history of Transylvania natural gas" or some such.James.folsom (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the article has shifted its topic since the nomination, it would be useful to get more feedback about moving it to a more fitting title, such as "Natural gas in Transylvania".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The information that was added here should have been added to other articles instead of here. The proper thing now might be to merge it to places it belongs, for example Transylvanian_Plateau.James.folsom (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only goal of the keep voters is just to never delete anything, they have no intention of improving the article. I reassert my deletion stance. And, since someone recently got it through my head what primary and secondary sources are, I add that this subject has no secondary sourcing required by WP:GNG.James.folsom (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not true - Turgidson did not only !vote keep, but made large improvements to the article. Article before the first PROD and now.
    I reassert my "Keep". Also, I don't see how this article has "shifted its topic". Does adding 2 paragraphs about why this field is important really change the topic? It is clearly still about that particular field. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "content is king" for me. I don't want to lose reliably sourced content. I'm agnostic as to whether that material is in a standalone article (that meets notability requirements), a list or part of some other article. If anything, Wikipedia needs fewer, longer standalone articles to maintain -- as long as we keep the same content.

Note that reliable sources include primary sources, subject to the 6 requirements laid out in WP:PRIMARY, part of our foundational No Original Research policy. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (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. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Cave, Shmankivtsi

Fox Cave, Shmankivtsi (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)

A small local cave in Ternopil Oblast (Ukraine), not significant, is not a monument of nature, without history, without geological discoveries. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In enwiki is 9 pages about caves in Ukraine. Really in Ukraine more caves about which there are no articles and which have natural history, cultural history, etc. Fox Cave (Really name is English? Please source for this name. ) is not without nature history, without geological history. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geography-related proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography&oldid=1203439442"