Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Geography. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Geography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Geography

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khoda Kandi

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

Non-notable village, possibly even a hoax. The name appears on Google Maps (possibly based on this article), alongside an alleged village called Khonda Kandi. Satellite View does not place the names at the nearest settlements.

If it’s a hoax, then it would be one of the longest-lasted by far. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of many pages mass-created by Passportguy (talk · contribs) based on an unreliable database, tageo.com. The claim "mystical and often forgotten" was apparently added by an IP vandal about four months later. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done some further digging, and it seems that when Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) did his infamous mass-creation of Iranian village stubs in 2013, he overwrote previous articles created by Passportguy, e.g. Ahaq. That means that any articles created by Passsportguy which have not been overwritten are most likely either fake or duplicates of Carlossuarez articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was originally https://www.geonames.org/13232 (probably based on an entry in GEOnet Names Server). That ID is now Mesdaraq (formerly 13521) but "Khodā Kandī" is still there under "alternate names". If it is the same place, a better source is needed to confirm, but it means there is (or was) a (possibly populated) place with this name (or a similar name) at that location (or somewhere else), which is enough to say it is not a hoax, but not enough for an article. Peter James (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cormorant Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts)

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

Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources in the article, and no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a rock. I'm utterly baffled why this was created. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability whatsoever. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that this article went almost 12 years with a tag mentioning it had no sources is an indication that the system in Wikipedia is not good enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barstow Rock (Massachusetts)

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

Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rock is so small it's not even visible on Google Maps, apparently. Utterly baffling why this was created. Template:Islands and Peninsulas of Massachusetts has quite a few more perma-microstubs like this that should be deleted. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete The reason why you cannot see it is because, apparently, it is underwater. I've looked at a bunch of nautical charts of the area, and they all show it a shallow underwater bump marked by a buoy. And while GNIS claims this was collected from the usual first phase sources, no topo map shows it until after GNIS was initiated, so I have to think the charts were the source. No way this is notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not even above the water level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Lane, Indiana

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

PROD was refused for this neighborhood of South Bend with several newspaper.com clippings attached. That it is such a neighborhood now is inarguable; it's within the city limits, and may have been so for half a century or more. As such it is referenced in South Bend newspapers, but that doesn't cut it for notability, so the question is, what was going on before the city limits moved? At this juncture I must point out that "Maple Lane" is the name of the street that runs north/south roughly through the middle of the area. Topos and aerials only go back into the 1950s, and this area is older, but perhaps not by much: driving around the neighborhood suggests that the houses are mostly postwar. At any rate, I find nothing that says it was ever a town unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ––FormalDude talk 07:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to be at delete on this one. The majority of the cites given in the declined prod, and in my own search, were about plans to repurpose a school in the locality for military storage. These articles are not about the community. The don't even verify that there is a community, only that a street of that name exists. That was until I saw this clipping which shows that it was proposed in the 1950s that Maple Lane should form its own incorporated community. This was while it was nominally part of Clay Township but before expansion of that town had fully absorbed it. That is enough to show that this was once an independent community for the purposes of WP:GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read through these PRODs, and by and large agree with them. Occasionally, however, I find one that is not like the others. I would encourage anyone who is researching this AFD to look at Newspapers.com, where there are a wealth of articles about Maple Lane, and clearly not as a street. There exists or once existed schools, school districts, churches and more. It was a 950-acre neighborhood started in 1922 with fanfare. Annexation discussions were held over a period of many years (I found it in articles from 1957 and 1958, the annexation ~~happened~~ was proposed in 1971, heavily opposed by the Maple Lane residents, and then there was a bill to ~~de-annex~~ give up on annexing it in 1977). The area (not just the school) was a source of controversy during the desegregation of public schools (over a period of years). This article deserves to exist per both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Here are a few of the sources I used in coming to this conclusion. This annexation discussion from 1957 states there were 1,800 homes and at least 5,500 in population in the "Maple Lane area". Maple Lane residents oppose annexation, schools discussion (1958) annexation repeal bill (1977). Not for notability, but for interest here's a sales add for lots in 1922. There is lots more. In any case, meets both GEOLAND and GNG. Jacona (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maple Lane is 100 years old this year! Jacona (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per proper BEFORE conducted per Jacona. Djflem (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weena (Rotterdam)

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

No indication there is significant coverage of this street. The one ref is from an article that says 400 streets in Rotterdam don't meet pollution standards and only mentions this as the worst. MB 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reworked the article to emphasize notability and coverage. Weena is a defining street in Rotterdam. Several national monuments and noteworthy buildings are on Weena street. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major commercial street in major industrial city of Netherlands. jengod (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD and the WP:GNG. Nomination is a clear and gross failure of WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. Nominator is concerned only with references, not at all with sources. This is not how articles should be nominated. gidonb (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per WP:HEY due to great work by Ruud Buitelaar and a clear WP:GNG pass based on those sources. Ovinus (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eagle Township, Boone County, Indiana. Viable AtD as it's mentioned there. No clear reason against a redirect. Star Mississippi 01:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Hollow, Indiana

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

This is almost impossible to search due to the name being shared with the residence of a serial killer. Maps and aerials, however, show that this is surely nothing more than a non-notable McManor development (like McMansions but smaller) from the early 1990s. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Eagle Township, Boone County, Indiana, where it is mentioned. Djflem (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a generic non-notable subdivision, it shouldn't even be mentioned on the township page. Reywas92^Talk 13:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:GEOLAND: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are infinite places on the planet, we are not obligated to mention every non-notable housing development whose only sources are database entries. We have no information to include beyond its existence as a few nondescript streets of houses like the subdivision I grew up in – that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens more such subdivisions both in unincorporated Boone County and incorporated Zionsville, and this theory would just clutter our pages with WP:UNDUE crap. Reywas92^Talk 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:UNDUE are you refering to? Which point of view is being discussed and not getting adequate and equal coverage? That poicy has nothing to do with this. (PS, where you grew up doesn't either). Djflem (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the township is not notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Mangoe states, it's difficult to find this location in sources because of the numerous mentions of Fox Hollow Farms and it's serial killer. However, if you include the term of Boone or Zionsville it helps a lot. I think this is interesting, in showing how Fox Hollow first tried to be part of Zionsville and was refused, developed their own infrastructure and then Zionsville tried to take them. We don't need to delete this article just because another area had a famous serial killer. I'm looking for some more info. Jacona (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The assertion that somehow the development is made non-notable because the type of dwelling or it's date of development, or that it we should delete it because there is a farm with a similar name that once housed a serial killer give me pause. Those are not valid reasons for deletion. What difference should it make whether the homes are McManors, McMansions, apartments, shacks, or shotgun row houses? I was able to find numerous mentions at Newspapers.com, but they were mostly pretty trivial. Even the most interesting of them were at best questionable for establishing WP:N, so unless someone can find something more, it should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate locality. Jacona (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this locality does not meet either GEOLAND or otherwise the GNG. My feeling is also that mentioning it in a "parent" article would be UNDUE and that redirecting isn't needed, however that is somewhat outside of the scope of an AfD close. firefly ( t · c ) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Park, Indiana

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

Taking this one to AFD as searching is a bit more difficult than normal. While "Walker Park" is apparently a common name for municipal parks in Indiana (there appears to be one in the South Bend area and another out by Evansville), this specific location appears to be about this set of vacation homes. Vacation homes don't meet WP:GEOLAND and I haven't turned up anything that would indicate this specific spot meets WP:GNG, so taking here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Tippecanoe Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana, where it is listed. Djflem (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a generic non-notable subdivision, it shouldn't even be mentioned on the township page. Reywas92^Talk 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:GEOLAND: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the consideration of WP:UNDUE - GEOLAND doesn't require us to mention a subject if mentioning it would be undue detail in the higher-scale article. Through my research into the Indiana places, I've determined that there's frankly so many of these little housing developments/resort homes/etc that there simply isn't a way to mention them all in a township or county article without providing grossly undue weight, even in list form. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stated policy has noting to do with the above so that's a big stretch. What are the points of view being presented and how are they not balanced in their presentation, when actually, there no point of view being presented? Geoland doesn't say that at all either. Djflem (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at a bit of cross purposes - I'm arguing that a set of vacation homes isn't due weight to mention in the township article due to the sheer number of these things, while your statement above seems to be explicitly arguing for inclusion of this material citing GEOLAND? Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there are guidelines. Using UNDUE incorrectly and fudging on NGEO because it's inconvenient are not really AfD arguments. Djflem (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- There are infinite places on the planet, we are not obligated to mention every non-notable housing development whose only sources are database entries. We have no information to include beyond its existence as a few nondescript streets of houses like the subdivision I grew up in – that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens more such subdivisions both in unincorporated Kosciusko County and nearby incorporated Warsaw, and this theory would just clutter our pages with crap. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ideas about Wikipedia is for and crap, but this is an AfD discussion not an opinion poll or place to share irrelevant user biographic details Djflem (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too grew up in a housing development in the United States! Dear reader, where did you grow up? :) --Doncram (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I considered this to be without any clear consensus, especially after 3+ week period of no activity, however at the nominator's request, I have reverted to allow an explicit outcome from one of those expressed above to be enacted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, non-legally-recognized subdivision. Mentioning at the township level would indeed be UNDUE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a non-notable, run-of-the-mill housing subdivision. Redirecting to the township article is not recommended. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as re-scoped during the course of this discussion Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manhattan Beach municipal parks

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

Does not satisfy WP:NLIST. – Meena • 09:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and California. – Meena • 09:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not have this as part of a list including all the parks in LA county? Category:Parks in Los Angeles County, California Dream Focus 10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TY for your very good question. There are 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County (pop ~10 million), many operate their own parks. The county also operates parks. (There are also state parks within the city although those are already well covered.) The jurisdictional boundaries are moderately important, even if every single municipal city park is not. I was imagining that ultimately the larger cities in LA county (Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, Torrance, Santa Clarita) would have similar lists. There are also various trails, bike paths and beaches which sometimes have multiple “stakeholders” or cross the territory of multiple cities.
- List of parks in Los Angeles - CITY - 21 have extant articles
- Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation - COUNTY - 183 parks mentioned, mix of cities and unincorporated areas, also manages Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area on behalf of the state etc.
- List of Santa Monica municipal parks
- List of Culver City municipal parks
- Beverly Hills, California#Landmarks - 5 mentioned are municipal parks, 1 county-operated park
Which is to say that a single list might get unwieldy. This list is part of a nascent organizational attempt! jengod (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand. User:Jengod, as User:Dream Focus suggests, expanding the scope of this list would be helpful, and I suggest moving it to either List of municipal parks in Los Angeles County (and include upfront link to List of parks in Los Angeles and state that this one covers all but the ones in the City of Los Angeles) or to List of parks in Los Angeles County (in which case mention the state and national parks too). I prefer the latter. It would also address/avoid minor question of whether a sublist of just Manhattan Beach municipal parks are notable as a small group on their own. The main idea is that of course "parks" are notable, and we can have a list of parks, worldwide, and we can sensibly break out subsections for nations, U.S. states, etc. It is also okay to build up towards having a comprehensive list of parks in California or in the United States by building a list of Los Angeles County ones. Which, as you say, could possibly become unwieldy already at that scope. I suggest moving this to larger scope, which is obviously Wikipedia-notable IMHO, and adding some non-Huntington Beach ones. It doesn't have to be all-inclusive immediately, it will be marked "incomplete list" as the current one is, and it can be divided into sections with one for Huntington Beach. It doesn't need to include, at first, all of the logical sections of Los Angeles County, presumably one section for each municipality and one or more for unincorporated areas. And, if/when it does become unwieldy, it is obviously fine to split out sections such as the Huntington Beach one to a separate list-article. In Wikipedia we often work on very big lists, like I spend most of my Wikipedia time working on List of RHPs, a 90,000+ item list broken into sublists. So, briefly, think big or at least think bigger, and go ahead and expand the scope. Whether or not this is done immediately, the scope can be expanded and the list-topic of "parks" in some geographic area is fine, so this AFD should only be closed "Keep", although that can be with comment that this should be expanded. --Doncram (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the way, the general topic is so obviously notable that I rather think this AFD should not have been opened at all. The narrower topic of municipal parks in Huntington Beach can probably be proven to meet wp:GNG by rounding up sources on the collection of them and/or on each one of them, but that is not even necessary, we actually don't need sources unless something is challenged (and of course I do believe your assertions that these are parks in Huntington Beach). --Doncram (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seeing no objection, I went ahead and moved the AFD target article to List of parks in Los Angeles County, California and developed that somewhat. It now includes sections on parks in Beverly Hills, Culver City, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. It is somewhat unusual to move an article when it is under AFD discussion, but doing so is not prohibited, and in this case I think it moves us all along in a good way. I didn't add sources; I think there is no need to copy sources from the listed articles into the list itself; there is no real question whether these are parks where they are, and no real question whether parks can be listed in Wikipedia. IMHO this is ready to be closed "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether other articles should exist or not, it appears this one meets GEOLAND Star Mississippi 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh-e Latifan

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

Deletion proposed by VersaceSpace because "It's a garden". Looking at the coordinates on Google Maps' satellite view, it doesn't look like a garden to me. Seems like a small town. According to Google Maps, there's a mosque. There's also the "چشمه الیا" ("Elia Fountain") nearby which Google says is a "tourist attraction". @4nn1l2: any comment? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not a garden now! If Liverpool is a swimming pool, then Bagh-e Latifan may be a garden too ;-) Statistical code: 216806, population: 257 persons in 66 families, including 127 men and 130 women, according to the latest census in 2016. Use Ctrl+F: 216806 to find its entry. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a genuine village, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at these many prods, VersaceSpace seems to think just because the co-ordinates given point specifically to a garden this is all the article is referring to! No, the article refers to the whole village. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been dozens, no hundreds, of these locations that have been PROD'd over the past two years (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Article alerts for some recent examples), not just by VersaceSpace but by quite a few editors who are trying to clean up some mass produced stub articles. There was even an AN discussion and an Arbitration case about thousands of articles that all had the same questionable source used to justify that they were an actual occupied settlement. You can debate the fate of this one article but, speaking as an admin who reviews PRODs each day, this deletion tagging has been a movement on the part of several editors to clean up "village" and unincorporated settlement articles (places in Azerbaijan, Iran, Africa, California, Virginia, etc.) that could not clearly be confirmed to have been occupied settlements meeting GEOLAND requirements.

And that doesn't even touch on the successful effort a while back to PROD the New York state "pond" articles which weren't about lakes and large bodies of water but about larger puddles in someone's back field or the articles on numerous local streams that couldn't ever be considered to be notable except for the people who lived next to them and weren't well documented. Years ago, Wikipedia had many mass produced articles from editors who are now long gone who seem to have had some free time and a local map or atlas and who created articles on every geographic feature for a location. It was a big problem a decade ago that some editors are trying to clean up these days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But that is all irrelevant to this particular article, which is very clearly a village and therefore meets our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of those users who helped cleaning up the mess Carlossuarez46 had created. I only PRODed abadis with no population, but here we see that abadis with a sizable population are getting tagged and PRODed too. We should be more careful about these abadis. I suggest we wait until the Iranian government publishes an official list of villages in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Gdańsk

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

Does not qualify for a WP:SPLIT; the imag being on Gdańsk is enough, surely. – Meena • 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge The German and French articles both have essentially the same text which fleshes out the history of the banner. My reading of both these articles is that they rather go on about what really ought to be a short section in the Gdansk article, but either way this is obviously not a candidate for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a lot of available info on the flag that can improve the article and get it to be separate enough from Gdańsk. Combining info from different languages and independently-found reliable sources can bring this to at least some decency. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have added information and will continue to do so. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very easily passes WP:GNG and there's certainly enough content there that it doesn't warrant being merged into Gdańsk itself. The version at the time it was nominated for deletion is a far cry from what it is now, and a good example of the fact that sometimes articles can and should be improved rather than deleted, if that is at all an option. PCN02WPS did a wonderful job with working on and expanding/improving the article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considering that this was the country-level flag for a period, I'd say it's an easy pass. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nadahan wedding bombing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagahan

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

This village is not notable on its own. The only coverages are about the Nadahan wedding bombing, so it should be redirected there. Furthermore, the name could be wrong. Is it Nagahan or Nadahan? Neocorelight (Talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think that this article is not notable enough for it's own article with its lack of references... but it should be merged and redirect to Nadahan wedding bombing until more references are found or the notability is established (See WP:TNT). 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to merge since all the information came from the bombing article. Neocorelight (Talk) 00:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree on lack of content to support a merge. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect viable search term. Djflem (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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