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/Alden, Colorado}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Junction, Colorado}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Junction, Colorado}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americus, Colorado}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americus, Colorado}}

Revision as of 17:44, 15 November 2023

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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alden, Colorado

Alden, Colorado (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)

No evidence of a community. Maps show a cluster of farm buildings next to former train tracks which suggests this was some sort of railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ●Keep- ●Delete- There are probably many offline sources for this place(doubt we are going to find anyone with access to any), So far I have found this which gives the impression that it is notable.(Not significant coverage). The reason it gives the impression that the place is notable is this statement from the link:
    "Alden became a sugar beet dump and siding on the Crow Creek Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad in 1910. It remained active as a siding and beet dump until 1965." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure why a sugar beet dump and siding would be a notable place. That's not significant coverage or establishment that it was a community. Reywas92Talk 19:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it could be notable is not the fact that is was what it was, but who/what it was for: The Union Pacific Railroad 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A sugar beet dumping place/railroad siding... This is not notable. Could be a brief mention in the Weld County article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we're proposing to source this to the unreliable GNIS, hometownlocator and roadsidethoughts which are two of those machine-generated-facts-for-every-GNIS-record WWW sites and just as unreliable as what they are relying upon, and a PDF file that contains 2 sentences. This is a largely undocumented stop on the Union Pacific railroad, used by some farmers for goods if the 2 sentence PDF is to be believed. It's not in Gannett's 1906 Gazetteer of Colorado at all. I can find it listed as "freight services only" in a table in a 1964 Official Guide of the Railways and Steam Navigation Lines of the United States, Porto Rico, Canada, Mexico and Cuba, and that's it. There's no history, no in-depth documentation of any kind, here. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that it was ever anything but a RR siding. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2023 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Junction, Colorado

Alma Junction, Colorado (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)

Railroad junction with no significant coverage to establish notability on its own. At best this could be covered by a single sentence in Alma, Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (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) 17:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Americus, Colorado

Americus, Colorado (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)

No evidence of a community at this location. Maps show a railroad siding with no connection to nearby roads. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found. Looks like another low-effort "article" based on an entry in GNIS, which does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various books on railways confirm that it is indeed a station on the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad the next station along from Buena Vista, and is not a community, incorporated or otherwise. All of the categories and half of the (two) sentences in this article are falsehoods. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on cursory search of Newspapers.com, which mainly returns coverage of Americus, Georgia even when you try to restrict results to Colorado. However, there was an Americus mining company that operated in Colorado in the early 1900s, and hence several references to Americus mines. But that isn't this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW and my own long-used standards. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2023 (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 move‎. to List of cities in the Dutch Carribean and then editorially re-scope the article.

Note that this discussion can't force the merge of List of cities in Aruba into this new article as a mandate, so I would encourage others to do this editorially (either by being bold, or alternatively by opening a discussion on the talk page of the Aruba list). Daniel (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the Netherlands Antilles

List of cities in the Netherlands Antilles (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)

Country that no longer exists. Only one source listed. Interstellarity (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, Netherlands, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP. It's grouped by island so is an informational list, and it's also a navigational list for a reader seeking information on cities in the former country. The lack of existence of the country is not a problem for the list. —siroχo 08:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of cities in the Dutch Caribbean and merge List of cities in Aruba into it. I agree with nom that we don't need an article on a defunct entity, but there probably should be one for the broader topic rather than pages for the individual islands, especially because in most of these places the cities are not politically independent. Reywas92Talk 14:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with merge as stated. Keeps the information in a relevant list. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see the point of moving an article that editors are advocating Merging to a different target article. You can always create a Redirect from the suggested new page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Liz, I think Reywas92 is suggesting a "reverse merge" of List of cities in Aruba into this article, plus a rename. I'm supportive of that in principle, but I don't think it's a proper outcome of AfD as that article is not tagged. Effectively that's a keep/move, with broad support for a related followup BOLD merge that would probably not be performed by the closer. —siroχo
  • Move as suggested by Reywas92 with his merge into included! Thank you, Reywas92! No real case for deletion or unchanged keeping. The list itself can use updates. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2023 (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. Several editors hold that this discussion is out of process and that more discussion needs to be had to merge lists affected by this proposal. I don't think the "out of process" charge is entirely fair to Buaidh, given the level of their contributions to the article and their prior attempts to solicit input on these pages, but it is clear that a proposal to delete will not be moving forward at this time, and that discussion should be held at a talk page to figure out how to proceed with the maintenance of these lists. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Colorado: A–F

List of places in Colorado: A–F (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 list has been replaced by a merged and updated List of populated places in Colorado. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/2023-08-08 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Colorado#Proposed_merger.

This deletion request includes:

 Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    KeepThe List of Places in Colorado: A-F, G-O, P-Z, are all very helpful and used frequently by my family when researching a name or place. The List of Populated Places in Colorado is not as complete and does not provide the information we need. It is helpful to find the information in one article as opposed to trying to find various other articles which may or may not show up in searches. Auldwhispers (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we need those listed somewhere. Dream Focus 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus. It does seem like the nominator hastily sped forward the merge process above when they were the only one to comment on it. So, it feels as if they went around the standard process (30 days discussion for merging articles, tagging them, etc.). Therefore, it seems abhorrent to reduce 1500 historical but non-populated places to ashes due to a lack of commentary on the merge discussion. Something I'll also mention, is that some of the places on this list probably don't belong, but AfD is not cleanup. This article meets WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I’ve maintained both the List of places in Colorado and the List of populated places in Colorado for many years with over 8,000 edits. It has become very burdensome to keep these two lists in synch. These lists comprise the following items:
    • List of places in Colorado – partial list of more than 4,000 miscellaneous places, not currently up to date, 945,633 bytes.
    • List of populated places in Colorado – list of 3,825 populated places recently reformatted and updated from the Geographic Names Information System and nine Wikipedia lists, 904,754 bytes.
We can only reasonably support one list of this size. The List of populated places in Colorado is comprehensive, but the List of places in Colorado is rather arbitrary. The GNIS lists 23,775 non-populated places in Colorado. If someone is interested in non-populated places they can reference the following three lists not included in the populated places:
We can update the List of places in Colorado with items from the List of populated places in Colorado and the above three lists, but I’m not sure that mountains, passes, and parks really fit in. I’m the coordinator for Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado and the meta:Wikimedians of Colorado User Group and I’ve asked for input or help with this project without response. I’m concerned that if we don’t merge these two lists soon, they will both die of entropy. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good enough reason to proceed with a rather large transaction of articles. I mean, if you suggest lack of entropy (notability is not temporary) over a few articles that fit NLIST, then a merge is a fine thing to do, but not something you can go ahead with because you're the only one managing these articles. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly broad list that is redundant to several others. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When List of populated places in Colorado: A–F was created, did anyone go through to verify that these are indeed populated places? None of them are sourced, and I suspect the list was built from GNIS which is known to mislabel things. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Not ready for mainspace, lacks inline citations to verify content. I'm finding a number of mislabeled "unincorporated communities" as would be expected for a list copied from GNIS. Unsourced entries need to be gone through one-by-one and corroborated with reliable sources; even many of the bluelinked entries do not point to any sourcing beyond GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dlthewave: Please let me know which places are improperly labeled in either list. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the ones that I found but the majority of the "unincorporated community" entries are unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Dlthewave: Please stop deleting places from the List of populated places in Colorado unless you know what you are doing. Most of the places you deleted had post offices at one time. The places you deleted may merely need to be relabeled as former post offices. Please check with the List of post offices in Colorado. I've verified all of the post offices against the references listed. I would appreciate your help in relabeling rather than deleting places. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the discussion #Proposed merger had no responses, for something obviously controversial that's not acceptable to go ahead with mergeing, and off-wiki meetups are also not acceptable when it comes to determining controversial merges and as has been said above, this lists more than populated places it includes mountain passes etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge "Places" is obviously not the same as "populated places", and it's reasonable to keep a list of populated places together in one place under the appropriate name, and geographic features should be listed in their own lists as they are. It should then be cleaned up to be only the notable populated places, and not non-notable post offices and names scraped from the GNIS. Reywas92Talk 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: The terms "settlement" and "populated place" mean the same thing, although "populated place" is the more common term in the U.S. Any list that contains formerly populated or extinct settlements should make that clear in the lede. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this nomination is flawed. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Articles clearly meet WP:CLN/AOAL for reader navigation aids. I think the templates are a matter for WP:TFD, so no opinion on them.  // Timothy :: talk  12:43, 22 November 2023 (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 Withdrawn‎. Nominator withdrawn their nomination. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ziarat Hissar Baba

Ziarat Hissar Baba (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 am slightly convinced that this village is made up. I looked through a government database and the village did not appear. Sources seem sketchy, I see TikTok more than any villages. There is also no Cebuano translation which makes it slightly more shaky. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Found and added 2 references to the article – it's a village in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan with 408 households and a population of 3700 per 2017 Census of Pakistan shown on Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website. The other reference, Digital South Asia Library, Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 17, p.72 is for Utman Khel tribe living in Malakand Agency...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator's comments above were taken in good humor. This article was created by someone in 2016. A lot of articles back then were accepted UNREFERENCED by Wikipedia, as we all know...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to new sources being found, I have struck out my nomination. However, if these sources are referring it as only Hissar Baba, the article should be renamed to reflect this change. ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:43, 16 November 2023 (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 Ahwahnechee#Paiute Ahwahnechee place names. Thanks for the clarification on target articles. Editors interested in Merging any information know where they can find it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hokokwito, California

Hokokwito, 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)

Mass-created article by Carlossuarez46.

Cites only GNIS, which is unreliable and does not satisfy the requirement for legal recognition per WP:GNIS. Populated places without legal recognition need to pass WP:GNG, however there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here.

In my WP:BEFORE I searched Newspapers.com for Hokokwito, Hococwedoc, and Hok-ok-wi-dok but drew a blank. I also searched Google Books which found a single one-sentence mention that appears to originate in the 1870's with work by Stephen Powers. In full it reads:

"Hok-ok'-wi-dok, which stood very near where Hutchings Hotel now stands, opposite Yosemite Fall"

This single-sentence, 16-word mention, is not significant coverage. Whilst other books include exactly the same description copied from the Powers one, this copying also does not amount to significant coverage. A search on the Internet Archive also only turned up copies of this single-sentence description from Powers.

A redirect to Yosemite Valley, California would be acceptable as an ATD. We do not have an article specifically about Yosemite Village, in which Hutchings Hotel was apparently located.(apparently I just wasn't looking in the right place). FOARP (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references
  • Henshaw, Henry W. (1912). "Awani". In Hodge, Frederick Webb (ed.). Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Bulletin. Vol. 30. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. (Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico at the Internet Archive)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Djflem; site is documented and might be of interest to anyone researching historical sites, but probably not enough information for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting just because there are several different Redirect/Merge target articles mentioned. We need to narrow that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 28 November 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aamjhar River

Aamjhar River (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 have failed to verify that such a river exists. The references consist of two youtube videos of people standing in water bodies that seem like rivers somewhere close to Aamjhar and a google search of a bridge on the river Ahu (which flows close to Aamjher I guess). None of this actually proves that that the freakin river exists pointing to the fact that this article is probably a WP:HOAX. Sohom (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2023 (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 Nomination Withdrawn‎. I Withdraw my Nomination (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Wahs

AfDs for this article:
Al-Wahs (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)

All 3 sources listed are Unreliable, Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:NGEO. (Second Nomination) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Yemen. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its an administrative unit which are generally presumed notable even if sources currently in the article are unreliable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Article Fails WP:NGEO "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"
    Fails WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    Fails SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    The sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV, making the article fail WP:GNG, and even then it would only be presumed notable.
    😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would an 'Uzlah not be notable? Schwede66 07:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable per WP:GEOLAND which is our WP:SNG Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It still fails WP:GEOLAND, and it says Presumed and WP:GNG still applies and states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    Fails SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
    The sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV, making the article fail WP:GNG & WP:GEOLAND, and even then it would only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PaulGamerBoy360 You misunderstood what @Schwede66: said, - they stated that Al-Wahs is a 'Uzlah our article calls it a sub-district. Lightburst (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i deleted that part but the fact is it still fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, & WP:GEOLAND. & even if it didn't fail them it would still only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as explained above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    no it does not, WP:GEOLAND states the following: "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Presumed notable is notable; recognized as a legal place and is populated. Source is not merely a map, so meets WP:GEOLAND. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed notable is NOT notable See this "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and it doesn't even have "Significant coverage in reliable sources" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The implicit deletion reason here is WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is to say that this article's subject fail[s] to meet the relevant notability guideline (emphasis mine). In this case, we have a very simple set of facts: this is very clearly a geographical entity, and the relevant SNG is WP:GEOLAND. What we have here is quite simply a legally recognized populated place, so the relevant notability criterion is met, and there is no good policy basis for deletion that has been presented. That there is news about events that have happened here (for example, coverage of a murder in the town [1], [2], [3], [4]) is secondary to the fact that the relevant notability criterion is met.
    Additionally, the claim that there's no significant coverage of this town seems a bit like a stretch. Even with my extremely limited knowledge of Arabic, I was able to find a digital source covering road paving in the town—I'm fairly confident that an individual with better understanding of the local language/culture and local print sources would be able to build this article out. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and add the sources, there is no point in mentioning them if you aren't going to add them. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you add the sources I will Withdraw the Nomination. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2023 (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 natural monuments in Karnali Province. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of natural monuments in Kalikot

List of natural monuments in Kalikot (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 fail to see the use of having a page for the Nepali national monuments in Kalikot District, as it's not the district Kathmandu is located in. Not to mention, this article is already covered by List of natural monuments in Karnali Province, because Kalikot District is located in Karnali Province. Réunion! 22:58, 9 November 2023 (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. There is a clear current consensus for keep among participants of this discussion, and there is no prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalgaon

Bhalgaon (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'm unable to locate any reliable references to this location. Terrickisaiah555 [T]/[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Terrickisaiah555 [T]/[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed as a village on the 2011 Indian Census, as the reference in the article says. So passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:GEOLAND is a bad guideline and this needs some WP:TNT so someone who knows something can create a decent article. This is likely a real place, but a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article. The only geographic claim is vague, unsourced, and as best I could check fails verification. GNS is very sketchy and I don't know what other source we would use to reliably source the location. I assume all these issues are going to be ignored and the article we be kept as-is, but really we need to stop keeping junk permastub articles just to satisfy a guideline which people complain about constantly. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you think it's a "bad guideline" or not is irrelevant. It is one. Some people complain about it. Many people support it. A few of the usual suspects complaining about it every time it's mentioned doesn't mean it should be scrapped. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article". Actually, one line for a village in one of the Indian Census's spreadsheets carries a lot of information. Hundreds of columns. No prose but a lot of stats. You could get a pretty good 1-2 paragraph stub out of that one line. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 24 November 2023 (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 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalia, Togo

Kalia, Togo (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:NGEO, no evidence of population nor existence. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failing WP:NGEO. Hongsy (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. (Please ping me if any reliablle sources are identified.) 20:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
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 06:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Datangshan

Datangshan (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 cites no sources and has no evidence of notability other than having a museum (which has its own article). The location itself is not notable. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND. Does Datangshan pass WP:GEOLAND?

    Datangshan is a hill and village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing, where it is mentioned. Xiaotangshan, Beijing is a possible redirect target if Datangshan found to be non-notable. Here are two sources I found:

    1. "北京小汤山，热气腾腾的疗愈之地" [Xiaotangshan, Beijing, a steaming place of healing]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). 2022-01-25. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12.

      The article notes: "北京城北约40里，有一座由三个山峰组成的独立小山，山形如笔架，因有温泉泉眼，被古人命名为“大汤山”。大汤山以西约一千米处，有三个低矮山丘，也有温泉，被称为“小汤山”。在因抗疫而被载入史册之前，小汤山就是著名的疗愈之地，并受到多位皇帝青睐，也是民国时的旅游胜地。"

      From Google Translate: "About 40 miles north of Beijing, there is an independent hill composed of three peaks. The mountain is shaped like a pen stand. It was named "Datang Mountain" by the ancients because of its hot springs. About one thousand meters west of Datang Mountain, there are three low hills and hot springs, which are called "Xiaotang Mountain". Before it was recorded in history for its anti-epidemic work, Xiaotangshan was a famous healing place and was favored by many emperors. It was also a tourist attraction during the Republic of China."

    2. Wang, Jiucheng 王久成 (2023-06-23). "北京小湯山" [Beijing Xiaotangshan]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-12. Retrieved 2023-11-12.

      The article notes:

      小湯山村發展成小湯山鎮，幾乎人所共知；殊不知還有一個鮮為人知的大湯山村，明代已經形成村落。村北有一個一百三十餘米高的山丘，與小湯山村一樣因山丘得名。原來大湯山村水資源豐富，山腳下有多處泉眼，泉水常年流淌不斷，溫度攝氏二十度左右，足以供村民生活和灌溉附近的農田所用。

      曾有諺語說：「大湯山好地方，山清水秀好風光。蔬菜四季有，花果滿山崗；池塘黑泥藕兒白，山下熱水稻兒香。」自然資源並非無窮盡，一九六○年代水源枯竭。大湯山村隸屬小湯山鎮，距小湯山村很近，雖然也有些企業單位入住，但村的境況遠不如小湯山村。

      From Google Translate:

      Xiaotangshan Village developed into Xiaotangshan Town, which is almost known to everyone; but little-known is that there is also a little-known Datangshan Village, which was already formed as a village in the Ming Dynasty. There is a hill more than 130 meters high in the north of the village. Like Xiaotangshan Village, it is named after the hill. It turns out that Datangshan Village is rich in water resources. There are many springs at the foot of the mountain. The spring water flows continuously all year round. The temperature is about 20 degrees Celsius, which is enough for the villagers to live and irrigate nearby farmland.

      A proverb once said: "Datang Mountain is a good place, with clear mountains and beautiful scenery. Vegetables are available all year round, and the hills are full of flowers and fruits; the ponds are black and the mud is white, and the rice is fragrant in the hot water at the foot of the mountain." Natural resources are not endless. In the 1960s, Water sources dry up. Datangshan Village is affiliated to Xiaotangshan Town and is very close to Xiaotangshan Village. Although some corporate units have moved in, the village's situation is far inferior to that of Xiaotangshan Village.

    Cunard (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second opinion on these new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (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 Palletalawinna. as it now exists (thank you). Star Mississippi 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palle Talawinna Udagammedda

Palle Talawinna Udagammedda (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, it certainly has a railway station, which suggests it exists and probably passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Katugastota has a railway station, if GMaps is to trusted. There's no source given for the location, it's the usual useless reference to the Sri Lankan census, and if the location be believed, it's a neighborhood in Kandy, not a village. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Palletalawinna is a settlement with a railway station of the same name. The settlement is not a suburb of Kandy per Google Maps. However, the article title includes Udagammedda and the only reference I've found under the article title is the GNIS. Rupples (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Palletalawinna, which is a notable geographic location. Additional references provided to clarify Palletalawinna passess WP:NGEO. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt, there is no Palletalawinna article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I meant it should be renamed to Palletalawinna, as that is the WP:COMMONAME for the location. Dan arndt (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To muddy the waters further, there's Palle Talawinna. Rupples (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz:/@Rupples: have created Palletalawinna so that a redirect is now able to be achieved. Dan arndt (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this redirect. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2023 (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. Editors can discuss a possible article page move and creating other redirects on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uda Makuruppe

Uda Makuruppe (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Described along with Palle Makuruppe as a village in A gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon. Combined population given as over 200 in 1871, 1881 and 1891.[7]. Rupples (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfied this was recognised in the 19th century censuses as a populated place. Can be retained under WP:GEOLAND as notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. Mapping indicates residences thereabouts per OpenStreetMap and aerial views but boundaries of the settlement appear not to be strictly defined. Acknowledge there's little to say, but this shouldn't mean wiping communities off Wikipedia (if I'm allowed to put it in such terms). It may be preferable to place such settlements in list form within an an article covering the lowest administrative area with a redirect, but that's a separate decision and would probably require a policy change. Rupples (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Added some detail. Article could be retitled Makuruppe and Palle Makuruppe redirected here, given the gazetteer source has a combined entry and Makuruppe is the only name shown on OpenStreetMap.Rupples (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Makuruppe - satisfies WP:NGEO. Dan arndt (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So long as redirects are in place it benefits the encyclopedia by merging nearby settlements, when there seems not much chance of developing the individual articles beyond a short stub. So in this case having Makuruppe as the article title with redirects from both Uda Makuruppe and Palle Makuruppe seems the way to go. Rupples (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2023 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vimankallu

Vimankallu (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Haven't found anything other than its listing in the GNS Ceylon list as a populated place.[8] — and two settlements with that name are listed. Unable to locate an online gazetteer for Northern Province. The co-ordinates I've added from the gazetteer point to the similarly named Veemankallu — the name of a lake but also a settlement and school. Because of uncertainty over the name I'm going to recommend delete. Rupples (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahalpitiya

Tahalpitiya (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werakonkanda

Werakonkanda (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Landajulana

Landajulana (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (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 Naranpanawa. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naranpanawa Kandegammedda

Naranpanawa Kandegammedda (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Naranpanawa. Naranpanawa Kandegammedda is in the 1901 census (population 109) and 1911 census (146).[9] It was one of six villages bracketed together with Naranpanawa in their names. Also listed under Naranpawa in A gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon [10]. Unable to locate Naranpanawa Kandegammedda on current maps. The GNS lists it as a separate place, but gives same co-ordinates as Naranpawa. Name may no longer be in use? Rupples (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT, concur with the points raised by Rupples. Dan arndt (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2023 (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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jiwanawatta

Jiwanawatta (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unable to locate on current maps or in latest census. Mentioned in snippets in one or two documents, but nothing really to write about. Rupples (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keenagolla

Keenagolla (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Other than a nature reserve, other references are about a tea estate in another province. Nothing found in gazetteer under this name or latest census. Rupples (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Found co-ordinates, it is mapped and the area around is populated. There's a Keenagolla primary school in Walapane Education Division.[11]. No. 1408 on this official list [12]. Striking delete on this evidence. Keep getting Timed Out when trying to connect to the Divisional Secretariat website, which may give further proof of the village's/hamlet's existence. Rupples (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (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 David Range. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hordern Gap

Hordern Gap (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 place in uninhabited Antarctica which only exists on a map and is only referenced to a database/map. Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable. JMWt (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if this wasn't notable, the information would be merged Mount Coates, Mount Hordern or the David Range. If the USGS has documented these features then we should too, it's just basic common sense to merge information into parent articles rather than obliterating any mention of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. We have notability criteria for a reason, otherwise all features which exist on any map anywhere in the world would be notable. JMWt (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is wide consensus on here that geographical features documented by government institutions are considered notable though. It's just using basic common sense to merge the information which you seem to lack. Wikipedia is not better off eradicating mention of these features, whether anybody is living in these places or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. WP:GEONATURAL. Please stop telling me how to think and use "common sense". JMWt (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • This appears to be an attempt to extend the (frankly, bad) automatic notability conferred by GEOLAND on to uninhabited places which, being uninhabited, do not fall within GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            No it isn't. But you would find if you proposed at the village pump to delete all of these stubs you wouln't be successful and would find that many editors don't have a problem with articles on geographical features which are documented in government sources. With these it's more a case of finding the best way to present the information. I would support a merger of the ones which can't be expanded into parent articles. If there are concerns about the reliability of the source, then that's an issue to be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there's a strong consensus that is quite the opposite, since the GNIS mess and the mass article creators. We know your views on this Dr. Blofeld, but after all of the kerfuffle you should really recognize that you don't speak for a consensus. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GEONATURAL for natural feature we need sufficient sourcing to be able to write an encyclopaedia article. Multiple sources are needed to sustain an encyclopedia article, in this case we have only one source (GNIS). Folding in sub-features that are also sourced to GNIS gets us no closer to notability, not least because notability is not inherited. WP:BEFORE has to be proportionate to the amount of effort expended to write the article in the first place, which in this case was practically zero since this article was apparently created by bot or bot-like editing (190 articles were created by Dr. Blofeld on the same day as this one). FOARP (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A search on "Hordern Gap" 1962 shows various sources. The gap was used, photographed and discussed by the 1957, 1958 and 1962–63 expeditions. Any traveller in this part of the Antarctic will be interested in what Wikipedia has to say. It passes WP:GEONATURAL. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all can Google. Unless you actually have sources for us to discuss, then you cannot possibly !vote that WP:GEONATURAL has been met. JMWt (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's start with Alberts 1995, p. 343 then. It tells us who mapped this, where it is, some expeditions that passed through it, and who named it and why. Then there's the original 1965 ANARE report. An excellent case that this is encyclopaedic is that it is in another encyclopaedia, namely Stewart 1990, p. 470. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alberts, Fred G. (1995). "Hordern Gap". Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF) (2nd ed.). National Science Foundation.
        • Stewart, John (1990). "Hordern Gap". Antarctica: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. McFarland. ISBN 9780899505978.
        • we know there was a scientific trip. That's not a sign in itself that a geographical feature it described very briefly was notable. It was an expedition in places where likely nobody had been before and few since - they named lots of things. And we don't normally take notability from other encyclopedias. JMWt (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, things being in other encyclopaedias and so should be in this encyclopaedia has been a fairly strong argument since somewhere around 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, but the entry I can read is a short-single-paragraph entry, not really SIGCOV. I can't see the Stewart reference but if it's the same level of coverage I'm not seeing how WP:GEONATURAL is met. FOARP (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think so. But let's say for the sake of argument you are right.

              You have a primary reference from the National Science Foundation which we can't use for notability, for fairly obvious reasons. And we have a secondary encyclopedia.

              So at best you are offering two sources, of which only one is really a secondary source. Which isn't enough for inclusion.

              In reality we commonly do not consider encyclopedia entries as notable in AfD debates. If we did, this would simplify hundreds of sports pages (for example) for people who only appear in old encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

              • I'm right because I was there at the time, and I've made the it's-encyclopaedic-because-it-is-in-other-encyclopaedias-and-constructing-a-both-generalist-and-specialist-encyclopaedia-is-what-we're-about argument at AFD. ☺

                I don't think that you know what a primary source is. It's isn't Fred G. Alberts's Names. Primary sources would be the original historical sources, the maps and records somewhere in Australia, or Norway. There is in fact no reason that we cannot evaluate Fred G. Alberts's Names for the purpose of notability. Fred G. Alberts didn't name the thing, and is quite clearly wholly independent from it. Xe didn't even come from the same countries as the people who named the thing, or go on the expeditions. Xe compiled and edited xyr compilation of named Antartica things over the decades afterwards, and xyr source is a secondary source. It tells you in its introduction that it was constructed by "collection and analysis of names data from historical and contemporary sources".

                And yes, we can and regularly do include topics that have enough coverage in old encyclopaedias. Not that 1995 in any way falls under that heading. Indeed, including people that have already gone through the filter of making it into encyclopaedias is a Hell of a lot better than the way that our biographical articles are often constructed. It's a Hell of a lot easier to have an encyclopaedic biography all laid out to show the way, rather than the so-often-used living persons method of throwing huge piles of tidbit or incidental press mentions together.

                Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly, GNIS-based stuff is entirely zappable, in my view. The GNIS is wholly unreliable except for coördiates, and not even for them some of the time. Its process is quite broken. Starting again without the GNIS involvement is the best course of action. This is only tempered here in that the GNIS text has been copied almost word for word from the 1965 ANARE report, Horden Gap from the entry on page 68 and Gap Nunatak from the entry on page 56. We simply need to cite the actual report, and things like the Alberts and Stewart encyclopaedias, which were actually listed first in Britannica's bibliography for Antartica for a couple of decades and are obviously the sources to go to (although there have been two more encyclopaedias since, that Google Books doesn't know about), instead of the bloody GNIS. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the report itself is of an expedition, no? It's a primary source JMWt (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added cite links to the other encyclopedia, and a bit about the 1962–63 expedition. I did not remove the GNIS links. GNIS is not always accurate, but usually gets coordinates right. I agree with Uncle G that if a reputable encyclopedia like Geographic Names of the Antarctic thinks a topic deserves a paragraph or so, that is a good reason to assume the topic deserves a Wikipedia article. We have plenty of room. To JMWt's point, a report by the leader of an expedition would be a primary source for an article on the expedition, but a valid secondary source for things the expedition found. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Psst, Aymatth2! That book is actually available in toto and we don't need Google Books's limited partial previews for it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Ah so! I fixed the source definition in the article to point to the pdf version. So since this encyclopedia is published by the United States government, it is in the public domain, and could (with suitable attribution) be copied into Wikipedia, starting wiith

          Aagaard Glacier 66°46'S, 64°31'W Glacier 8 mi long, which lies close E of Gould Glacier and flows in a southerly direction into Mill Inlet, on the E coast of Graham Land. Charted by the FIDS and photographed from the air by the RARE during December 1947. Named by the FIDS for Bjarne Aagaard, Norwegian authority on Antarctic whaling and exploration. Not: Glaciar Alderete.

          and ending with

          Zykov Island 66°32'S, 93°01'E Small island lying between Fulmar Island and Buromskiy Island in the Haswell Islands. Discovered and first mapped by the AAE under Mawson, 1911-14. Remapped by the Soviet expedition of 1956, which named it for Ye. Zykov, a student navigator who lost his life in the Antarctic in 1957.

          Very interesting. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think we should be simply copying directories directly into Wikipedia, neither GNIS nor this one. We're supposed to write encyclopaedia articles, which are essentially summaries of what secondary sources say on the subject. WP:GEONATURAL explicitly backs up the idea that the articles we are aiming to write are encyclopaedia articles and not some other form of article, even when it comes to natural features ("The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" - emphasis added). These listings are not encyclopaedia articles but instead geographical dictionary entries, and we should not create articles that simply copies of them.
          No objection to using it as a source, of course. Also no objection to copying it to Wikisource. However, to sustain notability we need more than a brief mention. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the sources above, this is my opinion fwiw. Antarctica is essentially a unique place for two reasons: first it has essentially zero human population and second it is disputed territory. The sources used above are a) an exploratory report funded by one country making a claim to territory in uninhabited land and b) an encyclopedia which collates those named features.
In my opinion, the first is clearly unusable for notability. Otherwise every national report naming features anywhere in the world would be notable. Which is the same as saying every feature on every map produced by an official national body is notable. Which is ridiculous.
The second might be considered to be secondary and independent (laying aside the issue of whether there is "substantial" coverage on the pages noted above). But the fact that the territory is uninhabited and in dispute seems highly relevant - a source simply listing features on disputed land as determined by one party to the dispute would/should not be considered notable in my opinion.
Finally I think we have to seriously question the whole concept of notability and how it applies to the uninhabited continent. Other than in encyclopedic lists of names of features which seek for completeness, who has noted these minor features? Other than a handful of scientists, nobody. There are no books or newspaper articles or anything which cover these things in substantial depth because why would there be? JMWt (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break1

  • Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer, with lists of features, some of which have their own article. WP:GEONATURAL says an article may be suitable if there is information beyond statistics and coordinates: enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition. It is irrelevant whether anyone lives there, whether it is in disputed territory, and how mny people are interested in it. A crater on the moon may have an article if there is enough to be said about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's all your opinion. I don't believe that the encyclopedia you cite meets the standard of substantial coverage - but even if it does, we need multiple sources - usually 3 WP:3REFS - which we simply don't have for an unimportant geographical feature on an uninhabited continent. The fact that one country in a territorial dispute has named multiple features doesn't give notability in itself, particularly when that naming has been roundly ignored by everyone else in every possible form of published media.
    Comparisons with the moon are interesting - because of course there are many named features on the moon. But there the features are a) very large and b) referred to repeatedly in many sources. The fact that they have been named and exist is not enough.
    Also: WP:NOTMIRROR "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: 3 Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording." and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
    JMWt (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer" - a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary. WP:GEONATURAL on the other hand says explicitly that our goal is to write encyclopaedia articles, which are necessarily more in-depth than a mere gazetteer entry, or even list of gazetteer entries.
    "The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition" - I disagree. The entries in that book are geographical dictionary entries, not encyclopaedic coverage, which is essentially a summary of what secondary sources have to say about a topic. Wikipedia is both not a dictionary and not a directory, but these listings of features would be essentially akin to dictionary/directory content.
    In other areas of Wikipedia (books, music, films, biographies etc.) we have not generally taken this kind of short-paragraph coverage as significant coverage of the topic. FOARP (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is, among other things, a gazeteer. That is, special rules apply to geographical articles. The information on geographical items may be presented in container articles, perhaps in list form, or in stand-alone articles. The main consideration in choosing the format is how much reliable information is available. In this case, there is enough to warrant the stand-alone format. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know more about where this quote comes from because WP:5P1 says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." - which isn't the same as what you quoted. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes from the essay WP:GAZETTEER. Of course there is also the essay WP:NOTGAZETTEER, which says:
Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which is a non-binding summary of some of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, presently states that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers".
However, this should not be misunderstood as stating that Wikipedia IS a gazetteer. Wikipedia is very different from, for example, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, in that it does not simply include articles on every single place, populated or not, regardless of the notability of the location. Wikipedia policy specifically excludes that it should be a "indiscriminate collection of information", "dictionary", or a “directory”, which is what it would be if it simply included the kind of information that a classic gazetteer such GNIS does, since a gazetteer is ultimately a "geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."
The idea that Wikipedia is a gazetteer is not something that has ever been confirmed by any consensus anywhere on Wikipedia. Every time it has been discussed no such conclusion has been reached. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the essay quoted above was written by the person who’s quoting it. As is clearly stated, it has not necessarily been vetted by the community. Djflem (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is great, because the essay that says the thing I'm responding to is equally also not vetted by the community. FOARP (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What’s great about presenting a block quote in green lettering when you’re quoting yourself? Djflem (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break2

FOARP Why not open an RFC to see what the community generally thinks about having articles on verifiable geo landmarks which are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Nobody wants stubs, but I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose. I fully agree with you on the concept of "inherent notability", I hate that term too, but the original objective of Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge". We are worse off not having any mention of these features than we are having them, even as stubs. The issue that that we shouldn't really be copying from this resource, and the information is poorly presented in masses of different articles at an inconvenience to our readers. Merging the scraps of information we have to parent articles which cannot be disputed to be notable is the way to go. I would actually support a bot which nukes many of the Antarctica stubs and merges the information we have into readable prose in more notable parent articles which may be stubs or undeveloped too, but I know the community wouldn't support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning open a RfC after the current AfDs have closed. Happy to cooperate with others here on the wording of a proposal and counter-proposal. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose". As encyclopaedia article subjects, yes. Not as mere single-sentence entries, which are not encyclopaedia articles. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A gazetteer often combines list and text format. An article like List of lakes in Foo County might have some general text on hydrography of the county followed by an alphabetic list giving name, coordinates, elevation and area. Some of the lake names would have links to articles giving more detail. In this case, the topic has too much verifiable detail to be stuffed into a list entry, which would look terrible on a phone. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This section should have been a level 4 header like the previous one, not a level 3, which is the header level of the entire AfD discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to David Range where I suspect more of these neighbouring Antarctic geographic features will end up after further AfDs if what constitutes notability for these geo features cannot be agreed upon. Even with the Hordern Gap paragraph, the article is borderline and would still be better merged. Rupples (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly disagreement about whether the sources provided are sufficient for notability, but in addition to further analyses of these, it would be helpful if participants could specifically address the question of keeping vs merging, and of merging vs deletion. I started writing out a "no consensus" closure, but given the effort put in here I'm hopeful that further participation can resolve this. My personal opinion is that no broader RfC is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm OK with redirecting to David Range, but prefer deletion. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - still Delete as no reasons given for !keep in my opinion. Whilst I appreciate the efforts of the closers, I do not agree with the assertion that an RfC is not needed. Either we clarify or we continue having these arguments for hundreds of similar pages. JMWt (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are supposed to be discussions where one's views are put forward; not arguments. FOARP is working through Polish GEONAME stubs and has sought compromise by offering up redirects in many cases. The discussions, though limited in number of contributors, are amicable and I've observed that both "sides" respect each other and are genuinely seeking consensus. It would likely be beneficial if a similar approach is adopted for Antarctic GEO stubs. Rupples (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, perhaps, we need a wider discussion. Three participants in this discussion think it is a worthwhile thing to do, I don’t know how or why you think this is somehow not “genuinely seeking consensus”, in fact the opposite is true - we have clearly reached a sincere difference of opinion and seek the venue where the wider consensus can be established JMWt (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment isn't about starting a RfC of which I hold no view, it's about considering alternatives to deletion and sometimes working towards some sort of compromise by agreeing to a redirect or merge. Rupples (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then I misunderstood your comment. I don’t see how a redirect is helpful - who exactly is going to be using the search term? And there is virtually nothing to merge other than the coordinates, which is essentially useless information about, let’s not forget, a gap between two unimportant mountains in a large range of mountains in the uninhabited continent. Merging will eventually lead to higher level pages that retain coordinates and no other information. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we agree (apart from the noninator) that the information should or at least could be held somewhere in Wikipedia. With this feature, and almost all features named in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, there is more information than just coordinates. WP:GEONATURAL suggests that if there is not enough for a stand-alone article, information on a feature can be held in a parent article. Rupples suggests the parent could be David Range.
If a redirect points to an anchor in front of a section on the feature within the parent article, the effect is much the same as with a stand-alone article. The user enters the feature name and is taken to text that describes it. A benefit of the merge approach is that the user sees context and related features, and so is encouraged to browse. A drawback is that there may be more than one possible parent, so there may be a risk of forking.
Perhaps we should refer this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica, so we can get a consistent approach to these features. I would be inclined to say that:
1) If the feature is in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, it should have a section or article. If it is not in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, it probably does not belong.
2) If the available text would easily fit on a phone screen, and there are no obvious sources for expansion, it should be merged to a section in a parent.
3) the parent should be a mountain range if applicable, failing that a peninsula, failing that an archipelago, failing that an ice sheet ...
4) links from possible parents to the parent section that holds the text are encouraged, and will help avoid forking.
Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My honest view is that locations in Antarctica, along with sub-sea formations (which includes rocks), belong in the same category as astronomical features (i.e., they are features that have never conceivably been inhabited that are highly unlikely to generate coverage and should not have any presumption of notability) and should be handled the same. I don't think there is any need to redirect them and we are kidding ourselves by thinking that people find these redirects useful, as well as greatly complicating the problem of cleaning up failing article by turning every AFD into a hunt for redirects/merges that are typically quite forced. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am less anthropocentric. Inclusion of articles on people or their works must be subject to proof of notability, given the risk of abuse. Even with these, projects may define special criteria for politicians, athletes, populated places, and so on, allowing articles on topics that may not pass WP:GNG. With natural or scientific topics, there is far less risk of abuse, and projects often define special criteria such as WP:GEONATURAL. These topics may only be of interest to a limited audience, but there is plenty of room in Wikipedia. I suspect that more readers will be interested in natural features of Antarctica, which are associated with hardy explorers, than in articles on obscure beetles or minerals. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we’ve noted above, these articles were rapidly created by importing a dataset. There is very little chance that anyone would find them interesting because we lack the data to say anything interesting about them. It’s hardly “anthropocentric” to say that some geographical entities lack sources and therefore lack notability. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I’d add to this that pretty much the only sources of the names of the features are a) expeditions b) a gazeteer of geographic names and c) national mapping agencies - then pretty much the only way that a reader on en.wiki would know to search for them would be if they’d already read those (most likely c) and have already seen 90-100% of all the information that exists and is likely to exist on en.wiki
Note that I accept that there are features in Antarctica where there is more to say, for example where there are research stations or big colonies of penguins. I’m only talking about the geological/geographical features where there is essentially nothing to say other than they exist and have been named. JMWt (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this quote from Aymatth2 above “3) the parent should be a mountain range if applicable, failing that a peninsula, failing that an archipelago, failing that an ice sheet ...”
I submit that this makes no logical sense. Basically we are saying that on the page for Framnes Mountains which is a big range of mountains there’s this other range called the David Range (which is non-notable and we have little to say about it) and two of the non-notable peaks within that range are Mount Coates and Mount Hordern (nothing much to say about them) and between them is a gap, but that’s also not notable and we have little to say about it. We’d end up with fractal sections on the page of cascading non-notable unimportance right down to “and in this non-notable bay, around the corner of this non-notable headland lies a non-notable island. A couple of miles away is this non-notable rock.” JMWt (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEONATURAL is the relevant guideline for information on natural geographic features, not WP:GNG. This AfD discussion is not the place to propose changes to WP:GEONATURAL. We should be concerned only with compliance of Hordern Gap,and perhaps of similar articles, with that guideline.
That said, a parent article for WP:GEONATURAL purposes will often describe a significant feature that also passes WP:GNG. The proposed David Range merge target certainly does. The description of David Range can obviously give detail on sub-features that are not themselves notable in the WP:GNG sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hence the need for a RfC. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break 5

I pumped up David Range. It could use much more detail on climate, geology, exploration etc., but is now structured so it would be easy enough to merge in articles on the features. The more I read about this rich topic though, the more I feel it would be better to expand the feature articles, which mostly have plenty of sources for more material, and to leave the parent as a summary. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right about the individual features but redirects at least leave open the possibility for future expansion. Good work on David Range, especially the image showing where the features are in relation to each other. Rupples (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suppose if a section on a feature gets too big, the redirect can easily be turned back into a stand alone article. Restarting an article that had previously been deleted would require more confidence.
The nearby Mawson Station is a busy year round research centre, and scientists often visit the David Range to study geology or glaciology, to service equipment, or just for recreation. So most of the features are well documented. But getting plain English out of scientific papers is far from easy. It could take time before the content is expanded. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, selectively, to David Range. On one hand it doesn't seem like there is a lot to say here, but inclusion in places like Alberts 1995 suggests we are better off, encyclopedically, having this information somewhere. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:29, 28 November 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Yalayis

Al Yalayis (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)

Created by a now-blocked sock, one of a number of entirely misleading geographical articles about Dubai sourced by the author from a statistical database and then dressed up to look like 'places', this article was submitted to AfC by a sock of the blocked user and then accepted in AGF. However, Al Yalayis is a mostly uninhabited area of mostly desert at the edge of which we find a couple of newer housing developments not named Al Yalayis. Not notable per WP:GNG, no RS on offer and a fail of WP:GEO as a community or place - quite rightly tagged as OR and needing citations, it's really not going to get 'em because is not actually a place at all... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - As I mentioned earlier, the article does not inherit bad faith from the sock. More importantly, Al Yalayis is populated and recognized legally (apparently) as a community. It could be very tiny with 35 people like Al Kifaf, and it would meet WP:GEOLAND. The housing development Mira definitely does not meet WP:GNG, but as long as Al Yalayis is a legally recognized place, we keep this article. I would delete if either of the two are shown:
    1) Al Yalayis is a statistical area not a community as the DSC government source indicates; edit and fix List of communities in Dubai
    2) Dubai does not have actually have any legal subdivisions beyond municipality-level; move to Al Qudra, remove all the non-GNG communities in List of communities in Dubai
    2) There is no such legal subdivision called Al Yalayis; there is only Al Yalayis 1, Al Yalayis 2 ... Al Yalayis 5; this article must be split into 5 articles. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They.are.empty.desert! All bar Yalayis 1/2 which straddle the Mira housing development and so are only mainly empty desert. There is no COMMUNITY called Yalayis. Many of the non-GNG communities in that list were put there by the author. There is no township/village/inhabited place called Yalayis that defines any legal settlement. That is my entire point - it's essentially fallacious. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, from what it looks like the UAE is divided into Emirates which is then divided into municipalities which is then subdivided into communities; of which Al Yalayis 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are. I'm referring more to the DSC source and the DE external link. While citypopulation doesn't demonstrate WP:GEOLAND, it verifies my theory that communities are the 3rd order administrative division and presume GNG via GEOLAND. And obviously, they are populated and not an empty desert, even Al Yalayis 3 is populated. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But they're really not. They're desert areas - you won't be able to go to a bank in Yalayis 3, let alone a post office or shop. It's in the desert. Dunes. Camels. Maybe the odd camel camp or outlying villa or 2. There are no neighbourhoods, no services, no 'communities' and certainly no notability. The article relates to a geographic database entry that has no bearing on the reality - there is no 'place' in Dubai called Yalayis. You'll never go to meet Bob in Yalayis, pop around to see Mary who comes from Yalayis or find it mentioned in any history of Dubai, any list of places where notable people come from or in fact any book about Dubai. Because it's desert. ONE day, you'll find a to-be-developed neighbourhood of low cost houses for UAE Nationals in Al Yalayis 5, but it's not been built - or even started yet. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still missing my point on it meeting WP:GEOLAND, none of these are reasons to delete. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from other editors about this article and how GEOLAND applies to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More credible sources just need to be added to the article because just by a simple google search, there several reliable sources that can be added.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please list these sources you have found. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a relevant wikiproject, perhaps a geographical one, whose members could contribute some insight here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad, the nominator, Alexandermcnabb, lives there for what it's worth. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 29 November 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full spectral imaging

AfDs for this article:
Full spectral imaging (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)

Neologism, single-source spam. fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Technology, and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Terrible article in its current form, but this is a topic of legitimate research ([13], [14], [15]). My only concern is that these sources seem to use the term somewhat loosely, referring to different (but related) concepts. So the article would need to be significantly broadened if it is kept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed, I saw those refs in my own search and wondered about broadening this topic but the connections between these papers are tenuous. I just don't think it would work which is why I !voted delete.
    I also don't know who would step up to essentially start the article all over from scratch. If want to rewrite this during this AfD, that would be a real WP:HEYMAN and you'd have my support. At the same time, you shouldn't feel forced.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. This somewhat generic term can refer to multiple unrelated things. This article is specifically about a kind of imaging technology for earth-monitoring and imaging satellites. I did a lot of searching and came up empty-handed for satellite-related papers authored by anyone else besides the author of this Wikipedia article, JFBolton. I did find some other scientific papers that used this term in unrelated ways (example: botany) but they are not applicable here.
JFBolton wrote and edited this article in 2007-2008 and has no other contributions since.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to lack of consensus. I will say that the same Merge suggestion was brought up at the previous AFD back in 2010.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neologism that failed to gain notability in the form described on the page. All academic sources that describe it in depth using the same scope appear to be authored by the same person. I'm not opposed to merging in principle, but it would be a second choice as, after reviewing the sources, I'm confused about the target. Should it be described as a proposed method in Hyperspectral imaging (per sources) or mentioned in one of the articles on Landsat satellites or their sensors as a method actually employed there? If it's WP:DUE there, why hasn't it been mentioned on any of these pages to date? PaulT2022 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist or a possible No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 27 November 2023 (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 Lachung River. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan Falls

Amitabh Bachchan Falls (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:N. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Lachung River. The falls themselves are mentioned in Emptying the landscape: outsider place-making, tourism and migration in Sikkim, India, as well as in a bit of news coverage ([16]). However, I'm not really seeing sources that are ever going to get an article on the falls beyond a stub. WP:GEONATURAL says that [i]f a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. In the spirit of both this and WP:NOPAGE, which says that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, I think we'd be better off merging this article on the falls into the article on the river itself, where the falls can be covered in sufficient depth in the greater context of the river where the falls are. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:40, 16 November 2023 (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 and rename to the current name. Consensus has clearly developed since relisting following the provision of additional evidence. BD2412 T 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kikeout Mountain

Kikeout Mountain (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)

WP:ONEEVENT, only notable for its "unusual" name.}} Liam Plecak (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really that. It's that it doesn't seem to be true from article title at the top to non-functional GNIS link at the bottom. The National Map has a Kakeout Mountain at this location. And a 1960 Master Plan of the Borough of Kinnelon, New Jersey has Kakeout in its names, too; so there's serious doubt that this was ever true, including in the 1980s. Everything in this article seems to be unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did get into GNIS on this: it lists Kikeout as an invalid name, along with another. This is an area where the topos go way back, and interestingly, the oldest one say "Kakeout"; then the feature name disappears for a while, and when ti reappears, it is now "Kikeout" and stays so for the rest of the series. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet the record for feature 877559 says "Kakeout Mountain". Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Gilliam created the article, so perhaps he can provide some details? I've blocked the nominator as a cross-wiki sock, and they failed to notify Gilliam of this AfD.-- Ponyobons mots 20:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many, many references to Kikeout Mountain on newspapers.com. I have not analyzed whether this amounts to sufficient coverage needed to establish notability, but there is no doubt this is a real place. Jacona (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far from one event, George Washington visited Kikeout Mountain, there was a reservoir built here (Kikeout Reservoir) which resulted in quite a bit of coverage, in 1897 gold was allegedly found on Kikeout Mountain, and it goes on and on. There's plenty of coverage. While not required, it is highly advisable to check newspapers.com for US locations as part of WP:BEFORE. I have clipped a few of these, hopefully will find time to post some of them here, but please check for yourself! The deletion rationale of WP:ONEEVENT may or may not apply to a geographic feature, but it is not at all applicable to this article. Jacona (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. As pointed out, the nominator is a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. this sheds some light on the name change. Jacona (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not for me, as I don't have access, and you haven't cited anything about the source to find it. The GNIS record for feature 877559 says "Kakeout Mountain" and dates it to 1979-09-08, which is before the supposed fuss about it being changed from "Kikeout" to "Kakeout" in 1986. So we've got a couple of journalists talking about a mountain and a road, and the actual 1960s borough plan, the National Map, and even the GNIS record to which this is sourced all saying "Kakeout" all along; which rather casts doubt on the reliability of the sources that say it was changed from "Kikeout" to "Kakeout", on which almost all of which this article content is based.

      I finally located the NorthJersey article using the Wayback Machine (which points to non-existent archives in several snapshots). It's very confusing, apparently mixing and matching letters to the editor in 1986 with a newsgroup post in 2005. But that sources the name change to the newsgroup post, and places it "after World War II". Google Groups doesn't turn up a newsgroup post, but there's a Rich Dean, erstwhile emergency services dispatcher (xe states) posting on Facebook, which is basically non-searchable.

      So we have an article, starting off at Special:Diff/645570523 with a name that isn't in the records from at least the 1960s onwards, and isn't on the National Map today, and we're basing most of this "controversy", and most of the article, on 1 letter to the editor of a local newspaper written by Albert G. Hotkins (whoever that is, NorthJersey doesn't say) decades after World War II. And Facebook posts.

      I think that we're woefully misinforming readers, here, with stuff that hasn't been verifiably true for 60 years, and 1 angry letter to the editor inviting people to join an apparently 1-person local pressure group in 1986.

      Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Uncle G, there are several other sources that discuss the name change on newspapers.com. If you don’t have access, you can get it at the Wikipedia library. Access to newspapers.com is available free to Wikipedians with a certain number of edits and no active blocks. — Jacona (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jacona. Interesting (and reported) things have occurred there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements during the AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to current name Kakeout Mountain: Passes GNG and WP:GEONATURAL. A redirect can take care of the former name.  // Timothy :: talk  11:54, 18 November 2023 (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 Bhitabaria Union. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhitabaria

Bhitabaria (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 WP:NGEO. NGA is considered an unreliable source. Nagol0929 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2023 (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) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Bhitabaria Union. Not seeing multiple sources meeting general notability.
Flurrious (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2023 (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. I don't think another final relist will bring us any closer to a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fork, California

Cold Fork, 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)

Another article on a thoroughly non-notable place in California. PROD was declined on the basis of the article having 3 references, but one is just GNIS (which doesn't establish notability), and the others are just the origin of the name and a confirmation that there was once a rural post office by this name (again, does not establish notability). As far as I can tell this is just a creek, not an "unincorporated community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything with fork (river) in the name is almost certainly a tributary, and likely would have had a post office. Welcome to the GNIS mess, where we've had hundreds of thousands of "unincorporated communities" dumped into Wikipedia over more than a decade, simply because of the lackadaisical and slipshod GNIS#Populated places. The USGS map shows that this is indeed a river. Figuring out what the "unincorporated community" rubbish is hiding is half of the battle.

    Cottonwood Creek (Sacramento River tributary)#Course already has Cold Fork as a tributary. So the real question is not the use of the administrator deletion tool, but whether there's anything to say about this tributary or whether, like so many "unincorporated communities" before it that turned out to be river forks, it should redirect to the article on the main river. Wood 1912, p. 23 has Cold Fork under Cottonwood Creek on Wood 1912, p. 25. But Smith 1997, pp. 39–40 is actually a fairly good source with farms and houses and people, and pushes this most of the way towards being capable of having an article in my view.

    Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Smith, Dottie (1997). Ritter, Eric W. (ed.). Historical Overview of the Western Tehama County Foothills. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Resource Area.
    • Wood, Beatrice Dawson (1912). Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California. Geological Survey (U.S.). Water-supply paper. Vol. 295–297. U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Comment - Without taking a position on whether this page should be kept or not, Hislop and Hughes is a self-published book, it was not published by the Tehama County Department of Education - that is not mentioned anywhere in the book. We shouldn't be using self-published local histories. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - anyway, if people aren't into Cold Fork, may I suggest a move to Hunters, California, which seemingly appears on more maps for longer and later. All the preceding stuff w Cold Fork and Pettijohn and the wagon routes can be subhedded "history" and then we can all move along. jengod (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment other move option:
    jengod (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google Earth satellite image shows Cold Fork, the creek. There's a road, too. And a bridge. And a house.

    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • And a bunch of history and geography in several history books, geological reports, and agricultural studies; as well as the odd news item: all in the article. Google Earth is not research. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Google Earth is not research. You are correct. It's a satellite photo. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I spot the foundations of 3 old buildings within 100m of these coordinates. Another foundation 2.6 km away.
      --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The United States Geological Survey's 1890 map does not show any sort of community in this location. Ditto the 1902, 1916, 1949 maps. The 1959 shows a place called Cold Fork - it has 3 buildings. The 1967 map shows "Cold Fork" with 3 buildings. The 1977 map shows a place called "Cold Fork". I had bandwidth issues and was unable to fetch later maps.
      You can pull up 26 maps published from 1890 to 2022. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reason is WP:GEOLAND and WP:HEY बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (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) 20:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing more about a possible page move or redirect which is mentioned in this discussion as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per WP:GEOLAND, WP:HEY, & WP:NOTTEMPORARY. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (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. A possible Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deiannewela

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly non-notable, it's actually a suburb of Kandy - and this article is even misspelled, it's Deiyannewela. If you absolutely had to, then move the article and then redirect to Kandy. But deletion is just as valid an outcome - there's literally nothing to be said for the place. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a few more noms in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka, fyi. Hongsy (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Alexandermcnabb
    I have a few more noms in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sri Lanka, fyi Hongsy (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/merge with Kandy::This is a legally recognized populated place, a suburb of Kandy. There are articles with a trivial mention of this place in Sinhalese, typically arrests of people from the area, like this, this, this and this. There doesn't appear to be much encyclopedia-type content written about it though, but I sure that there are sources in Sri Lanka which could be obtained to write an article on it. Kandy Library would be a good place to look if we have any editors from that city on here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing source able that can be written about this place. There's also no evidence of legal recognition which is required for a GEOLAND pass. Calls for merging it need to be clear about what they think should be merged since the page has zero verifiable information on it at present. The location in the article isn't clearly linked to the supposed neighbourhood. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The place is a village, or Grama Niladhari division, in Gagawata Korale Divisional Secretariat, Kandy. A search on "දෙයියන්නේවෙල ග්‍රාම" (Deiyannewela Village) gives snippets like:
    • "...the third place is No. 261 Deiyannewela Village Officer T.M.C. Mr. Prasanna Thennakoon ..."
    • The police mentioned that this village officer is attached to Deiyannewela village officer domain."}
    • It has been revealed that the land with an area of ​​fourteen (14) acres and two (2) roods and twenty one (21) perches located in Gangawatakorale, Kandy district, in the domain of Deiyannewela Village Officer, has been misused since the year 2010.".
There is not a lot written about it, but it is a legally recognized populated place, so passes WP:GEOLAND. @Hongsy: have you checked for Sinhalese sources before nominating this and other Sri Lankan articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Aymatth2
yes, I have checked and cannot find anything notable before nominating this and other articles. Hongsy (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately https://www.gangaihalakorale.ds.gov.lk/, which should give some official information about the village (technically a village officer domain, which is not quite the same thing), is not responding. But the first set of search results shows that the village was hit by a catastrophic flood that left up to six inches of mud inside the houses, the village officer was arrested for selling fake documents to parents of schoolgirls, teak wood was being imported to the village illegally, the Deiannewela Rasingdev College is well known, two men operating s lawnmower in the cemetery were struck by lightening and killed, a great battle in which an entire Portuguese division was destroyed took place in what is now Deiyannewela, and so on. The typical goings on in the village are well reported and could form the basis for a much more extensive article. Again, it is a legally recognized populated place. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, was the location of the first public housing tenements in the country. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfied this is a legally, recognised populated place. It's the name of a ward, a place within the ward and the site of the National Hospital (Teaching), Kandy. Deiyannewela is referenced now and historically. Has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zirkeyk

Zirkeyk (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Hongsy (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this place even searching on geonames.nga.mil Hongsy (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Zirkeyk listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an abadi, which is a class of rural locality explicitly excluded from GEOLAND as so many of them are not actual communities but instead pumps/farms/factories/etc. However, locations with populations above 100 are supposed to be slowly being converted into actual villages, so it's possible this is a real place. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's at least a school there, per IRNA (معاون سياسي اجتماعي استاندار سيستان و بلوچستان در سفر يك روزه به شهرستان خاش از مدارس زيركيك و ده قلعه ايرندگان ديدن كرد و مشكلات حوزه آموزشي اين بخش را مورد بررسي قرار داد appears to refer to a زيركيك in Irandegan, which would correspond with the entity in this article). That being said, the IRNA link isn't significant coverage, and my Persian language abilities are quite limited, so I'm having a hard time finding anything about this place other than it exists, has a school, and has some small population. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - this is an abadi (similar to a census tract), and therefore does not get a GEOLAND pass indeed it is explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep - The location given in the article points to what appears to be a village called simply Ebrahim Abad (or Ibrahimabad I suppose in another romanisation). FOARP (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 18 November 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahidayit-e Shandak

Shahidayit-e Shandak (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. It's a different excel file now but still not notable. Hongsy (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ganj Konar listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whilst simply being an abadi does not give a pass of WP:GEOLAND, in this case the population is large enough that the abadi should have been converted into a proper village. The issue is that even if this happened, it may not have this name (the name apparently translates as "You are martyred" according to Google Translate, though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into this). Looking at the table, it actually does not include an exact match for this village-name, but line 1390 includes 'شهيدايت شندك which I understand is similar in sound/meaning and has the same number of people/families as in the article. Personally I'd lean towards just redirecting this to Gowhar Kuh Rural District per WP:NOPAGE since there might at some point actually be a real article about a real village here. FOARP (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a notable place (WP:GEOLAND)
बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (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! 23:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pishakhor

Pishakhor (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Pishakhor listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This is an abadi, which should not be understood as necessarily being the same as a "village" even if it is sometimes translated that way. In reality many abadi on the Iranian census are simply named locations (factories/farms/pumps/bridges etc.) that the census was taken near. For this reason, abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. In this case, there does appear to be a place called روستای پیش آخور (which Google Translate tells me means Pisakhur village) at the location given in the article so at least this can be verified in a very basic way. The population is also large enough that this place should eventually be given official status as a village (supposedly given to anywhere with a population over ~100). For these reasons I am inclined to keep bt the information supporting this article is very scanty. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per FOARP's insights.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:03, 12 November 2023 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur

Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#06 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This place is an abadi which are explicitly excluded from WP:GEOLAND (" 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"), since many of them are not actually villages but instead farms, factories, military bases, pumps, shops etc. In this case Google translate tells me the name means "Thank you Hosseini" though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that. The population is large enough that the place should eventually be converted into a village, though I don't see any evidence that this has happened. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is one of the many articles Carlossuarez46 created on places listed in the Iranian census; later investigation revealed that many of the places weren't communities at all and he didn't fully understand the sources he was interpreting. In light of that, I think it's fair to delete any questionable-looking article he created that doesn't have additional sources. (I'll leave it to people who know the country better to determine what counts as questionable-looking, but this article seems to.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:32, 18 November 2023 (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 Hindi Belt. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow belt

Cow belt (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)

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PRODded in 2020 by LearnIndology (no-pinged; TBANned and inactive) for reason It is just a social media slang and not enough scholarly sources are available for this term. Instead BLAR'd to Indo-Gangetic Plain by Capankajsmilyo. Restored by आज़ादी, BLAR'd again by LearnIndology because has nothing except a dictionary source; restore redirect, and finally brought to RfD, where I found consensus to restore and send to AfD. A number of RfD voters favored redirecting to BIMARU states, which this AfD should consider. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's non-trivial to consider, but fairly obvious. Reddy 2015, p. 109 documents this as a genuine journalistic shorthand. But it is long past the time that we should have formally adopted rules against slang article titles, given how inevitably bad they have always turned out to be over the years. Reddy 2015, p. 109 indicates that "cow belt" is pejorative slang, and talks of a Hindi belt. That latter turns up in things like Harrison 2015, p. 305, which documents K. Kelappan's view of the Hindi belt. Given that sources such as West 2010, p. 281 (the author being an anthropology professor) and many others use the names synonymously, and given that Reddy 2015, p. 109 (the author being a journalist) points out that "cow belt" is pejorative for Hindi belt, the fact that this should be a redirect, and the redirect target, seem plainly indicated by how subject experts have documented this. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reddy, Kovuuri G. (2015). Handbook of Journalism and Media: India, Bharat, Hindustan. Vikas Publishing House. ISBN 9789325982383.
    • Harrison, Selig S. (2015). India: The Most Dangerous Decades. Princeton Legacy Library. Vol. 2233. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400877805.
    • West, Barbara A. (2010). "Hindi". Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438119137. so-called Hindi belt or cow belt
  • Keep this is notable enough. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to BIMARU states per the rationales shared at the RfD. The subject does not appear to independently pass GNG, with only passing mentions in sources and no focused discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Uncle G you say it's fairly obvious but it's not despite your admirable investigation. I gather you want to turn this page into a Redirect but to what redirect target? The one proposed in the nominator's statement or to the previous redirect target? Or another one entirely?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Is this not just an alternative name for the Hindi Belt? Is there something I'm missing here? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term seems to be used interchangeably in some contexts, but is typically used to refer to a particular region that is a subset of the Hindi belt. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, although I thought that the quotation and the fact that I said that they were synonyms made it obvious, per Reddy 2015, p. 109 and West 2010, p. 281 the "cow belt" is the Hindi belt, just a pejorative name for it. Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. Reddy 2015, p. 109 draws a distinction between the Hindi belt a.k.a. Hindi heartland, including Delhi and Chhattisgarh, and the BIMARU states, not including those. But that's another discussion, about two other pages. Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hindi Belt and/or selectively merge there. If this is simply a slang term for a region referred to by a more common name, it might be better to mention it within the article with broader scope that provides more context rather than forking it out into its own article. Sources are describing the two as alternative names for one another, and I'm not really seeing the nominated article as being about the (oft-)pejorative title, so I think we've essentially got duplicate article subjects at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Liz's relisting comment below, I'm OK with BIMARU states, though I do think Hindi Belt is more precise. I'd be fine hashing out this nuance at RfD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's please not send this back to RfD, this AfD was only opened because of an RfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different redirect target articles mentioned in this discussion. If this closes as Redirect, we need to coalesce opinion on one article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hindi belt: Since this is simply a (junior and pejorative) synonym for the existing article Hindi belt, we should simply redirect to avoid a content fork. I agree with the opinion above that we should be extremely circumspect about adopting a pejorative title as an article name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2023 (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=1185271039"