Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:41, 20 April 2024

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Geography

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 Martin Ski Dome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Washington

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

At a glance, this looks like a well-written and -sourced article, but it's a total WP:COATRACK. Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass, Northern Pacific Railroad, or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [1] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [2] People ski at Meany SKi hut [3]James.folsom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In further reading of the papers I did see a passing mention about steam locomotives needing to stop for water after a long climb up a grade. James.folsom (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that some workers lived is factually incorrect, as my second source makes it clear there were no overnight facilities at the site. Several, other sources I read make it clear it is miles from the nearest and very remote. James.folsom (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, nothing showing this meets GNG or NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martin Ski Dome. This page does not meet GEOLAND and would be a delete for me, but it is just about a plausible search term for the proposed target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 03:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeth, Indiana

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

Carroll County, Indiana has almost entirely listed unincorporated places that are clearly towns, but this one is an exception. There is the usual square pattern of roads just to the east of the (now taken up) rail line, but the aerials and topos show that this wasn't always there: the oldest topos I found (from the 1960s) don't show it at all, and the aerials show it apparently coming into being. Given the location of the label by the grade crossing, I have to suspect this was a rail point for a town which never really materialized. Perhaps someone else can find more info, but searching was surprisingly difficult: Sleeth is apparently a very common name in Indiana. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to sources on the article it was a post office. I can't find anything in the newspapers about it. But I believe the second source that is on that article just assumed that a post office = town.James.folsom (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taggart, Indiana

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

Another "nothing much there" place, and the supposed naming source does not check out, though I did learn a novel 19th century circumlocution for marriage: "bound in Hymen's chains". Anyway, the gods of Google did not shine upon me, as there are at least two quite famous Taggarts and plenty of kin and offspring to clog the works, but at an rate, I found nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This locale is only notable at the most local level. Wikipedia is also not a directory of every spot on a map. TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far I have found one reference in the Brown County Democrat to the "Taggart community of Hamblen township" in an obituary...speaking of which, there are many references to "Taggart cemetery", "Taggart-Hamblen cemetery", and other variations. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 1987 article on the Taggart Cemetery which refers to the possibility that it may have once been the site of the first school house in Brown County. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Brown County Historical Society in 2020, there is now a historical marker where the first school and church in Brown Couny (actually a meeting house started by Brother Patterson C. Parker of the "Republican United Brethren Church"). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the place is it may be actually know as taggart-Hamblen James.folsom (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mark that obit clip as public, so we can view it? James.folsom (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 1939 article about the historic Taggart Cemetery, also referring to the first school house and church erected in Brown County. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one problem with this... Communities turn out to be just rural areas, in AFD after AFD. Schools and cemeteries are found in rural areas. None of these things demonstrate the presence of a concentration of people rising to the level of a populated place. But I will be back with more detail... James.folsom (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously the # of taggart people is an issue. James.folsom (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried a alot search tricks with the local paper to limit the hits to places, the only term that found anything was "taggart community" which only had ten hits, so thumbs down on this.James.folsom (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waycross, Indiana

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

Another case of "populated place" not meaning "settlement", because Waycross isn't the location of the camp and conference center: it is the facility itself. Waycross was opened by the diocese in 1957, and it pops up in a previously blank spot on the topos shortly thereafter. I'm marking this for deletion rather than some other outcome for three reasons: first, all I'm getting for it besides its website is directory listings, so notability is an issue anyway; second, there's nothing much in the article that would be useful in making an article anyway; and third, there should be no redirect from this name because it would allow the misconception that this is a settlement to persist. The article on the diocese doesn't mention the facility, but it should be called by its proper names (it's often just called Waycross) in linking to a section there. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leaning delete, though there actually is some coverage of the Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center: in the Brown County Democrat in 1999 and again in "Making a difference through cookies" in 2017. The cookies article explicitly refers to Waycross as the name of the children's camp and conference center, not as the location ("Brown County"). Cielquiparle (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above, and per what I can see from county maps and histories, the site doesn't appear to be anything more than a camp and conference center. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is factually incorrect as this is a camp, not a community, so WP:GNG applies. I'm not sure it's met from the sources above. I suggest delete "without prejudice" so that an article about the camp (not any supposed "community") could be re-created if more sources are found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to establish notability for the local church camp (questionable) that can be done separately; repurposing a false article about a supposed community is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If enough other sources are found, one could make a separate article for Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center, but it seems misleading to keep an article called "Waycross, Indiana" and presenting it as a "community". Incidentally, a search for "Waycross" in Indiana newspapers over time mostly returns articles about Waycross, Georgia. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everyone, and add that if Cielquiparle and ╠╣uw won't even vote to keep it, it's time for it to go.James.folsom (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split rock of Horeb

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

I've struggled to find sources since this was created. There are a lot of sources, but they are either fringe or seem to be about something else. I've left one source in the article as an example - the Fox News article is really a publicity piece about a travel tour run by someone who claims to have found the real location of Mt. Sinai. His book cites people like Ron Wyatt [4] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Religion, Geography, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Split rock of Horeb is just one of many natural split rocks that can be found in many arid environments. Lacks reliable sources, as noted above, that demonstrate that this specific split rock has either any cultural, historical, archaeological, geological, or geomorphic significance. Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is unlikely to be the real Split Rock of Horeb, but it has been the topic of some coverage, and may well pass GNG as an interesting-looking rock that is the topic of a local legend. If this claimant to the title of Split Rock of Horeb has a different official name, move the article to that title. There is no corresponding article in Arabic for the title انشقاق صخرة حوريب

I see several Google hits for انشقاق صخرة حوريب , but I cannot evaluate them. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I added an infobox to the article to show where the rock is located. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dream of a day when Wikipedia can have an article on every big funny-looking rock, but until then... – Joe (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to History of Bellingham, Washington. If this is the correct Redirect target article, feel free to change it. There were several mentioned in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Whatcom

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

Merge with History of Bellingham, Washington. Article is about a single settlement that existed for roughly ten years after the merger of Whatcom and Sehome, and prior to its merger into Bellingham. Supported by one source, which itself doesn't support most of the text. PersusjCP (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. PersusjCP (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, Looking at it now in retrospect, I think it may be better to merge with Bellingham, Washington History. Gonzafer001 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzafer001 are any parts of this article generated by LLM (WP:LLM)? "stunning natural beauty" and "marked a significant moment in the region's history, shaping the development of Bellingham into the thriving city it is today" have WP:TONE issues and sound like something ChatGPT would generate. Jfire (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. A lot of this does sound like it was generated by an LLM. I plugged the text in to a few of those LLM detector sites and it came back at 100%. I don't know how reliable they are but I plugged human writing into it too, including from WP articles, and they all got <5%. PersusjCP (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bellingham - there's not much sourced information here to merge! SportingFlyer T·C 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me too PersusjCP (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taggart Crossing, Indiana

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

This popped up while I was trying to verify a different place, and one look at the topos shows that it is a creek crossing, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Nothing to suggest this is an actual "community". AusLondonder (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More GNIS nonsense, no information found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only about 300 vague and passing mentions in the local paper, which is not very many when considering 100+ years of newspaper coverage. None of these provide any detail regarding the place. I'm rather confidant it was just a name of rural area centered around a named crossing of some kind. These three newspaper clippings [5][6][7] layout the entire history of the county, and couldn't spare more than the two words in the name of the place. This also provides alot of useful info about how towns get created, and the nature of postoffices that is very useful for AFD argument.James.folsom (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Garh Tehsil

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

Reviewed during NPP. I think two reasons for the nomination. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. SNG would be the only possibility and not even the requirements for that are met. More simply, the only reference give does not even mention it and in a search I can't find anything to even confirm that it even exists, not even on Google maps. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place exist. See Khangarh, Sindh, this and this--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those (sourceless pages in the Wayback machine) are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Garh and Khangarh are same. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Thanks. So I think that that reinforces that it already has an article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Saqib. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Those are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the city and the tehsil are two different things. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: ??? I don't understand. Saqib gave sources for Khangarh and said that it's the same thing as this AFD. You said keep based on those sources, but when I said Khangarh already has an article you said that this AFD article is not the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib’s sources verify that Khangarh/Khan Garh is a local government area (tehsil). As a local government area any tehsil is notable. Tehsils may or may not be approximately similar to towns, and the fact that we already have an article on the town doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also have an article on the tehsil. Is what I meant. Mccapra (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has only one reference which is dead but is archived at the wayback machine. And what's at the wayback machine does not even mention the topic. That said, I'm going to step back and let others decide. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason that we have articles on Schenectady County, New York and Schenectady, New York. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether or not a Tehsil is suitable to have an article. The question is: do we have a suitable source that says that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists? North8000 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[8] [9] [10] and [11] all easily available from Ghotki District show that Khan Garh or Khangarh is a verifiable tehsil/taluka. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. Local government units at the Tehsil level are routinely kept on Wikipedia even in the absence of GNG level sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy-based discussion is needed. Just because something exists, does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To simplify, I'd agree (and already agreed) that a Tehsil meets NGeo should be kept without needing GNG sources. I looked at all of the sources noted, and from what I can see none of them is a wiki-suitable confirms that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists. The only reference in the article is to a sources list in the wayback machine which seems to say it doesn't exist. Others are ambiguous, don't say that it is a Tehsil, and seem to be referring to Khangarh, Sindh . Others are to blank sourceless pages in the wayback machine (including the only two cites at the Ghotki District article and even those don't really say that it exists. Can somebody find ONE wp:RS that clearly says that it exists as a Tehsil? And maybe even put it in the article because the article currently the article has ZERO wp:RS sources, and even the one non-RS source that it has (a sourceless page in the wayback machine) doesn't even claim that it exists. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to being deliberately obtuse here, as Eluchil404 in his reply to you above listed sources (I checked the first and the third, which is enough) that confirm that this is a tehsil. If you didn't know that a taluka is the same as a tehsil then just look in your favourite encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit the "deliberately" crap. Beyond that, I've done my best here. I'm going to unwatch this and let y'all decide. Anybody please ping me if I may be of assistance. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Phil Bridger. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Replaced the existing archived reference that did not mention Khan Garh Tehsil with an archived reference from a Government of Pakistan website that clearly mentions it (page 18 of 38 - Khangarh Taluka). Also added a Dawn newspaper reference mentioning 'Khangarh taluka'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and a huge change. That makes it Keep for me. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Trail Arboretum

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which could be considered against the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I created this article many years ago. As I don't live anywhere nearby, it must have been based on something in books or Internet, but just now I've done a quick hunt and can't find anything relevant for this article. Perhaps someone that lives closer can add references? Anyway, I agree with the points that you've made. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:BEFORE search brought up so little, including in local newspapers, that I'm not even sure the article's title is the correct search term. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanam, Indiana

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

So, here we have another way to create a spurious GNIS entry. I will begin by saying that none of the aerials give the slightest confidence that there was ever a settlement here: there's an isolated building shown on GMaps, but you don't have to go very far back before it's an unbroken expanse of forest. So, we go to the topos. When you get back a ways, they do show a "LANAM" label, but it's in the physical feature font, running at an angle. And if you look around you'll see a lot of similar labels, many of them marking "ridges". And indeed in searching I find a number references to "Lanam Ridge", including the road that runs though the area. Apparently either the "ridge" part of the label either got lost or was for some reason omitted, and then some GNIS map reader missed the font clue and turned it into a "populated place". There is a "Lanam Cemetery" a ways to the east, at least according to Find-a-Grave, but I can't find a connection of it to anything (which is pretty typical), and Lanam appears to be a common enough name that it accounts for most hits. At any rate, if there was a Lanam town, it wasn't here. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's research. It looks like at one point there may have been a post office near the site named "Oak Farm"[12], but I couldn't find any maps that mark the location as an actual town or settlement. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Locals know this as Lanam Ridge, and this should get moved there if not deleted. This is a neighborhood of residents of the ridge. I can't find any one article gives the nature of the place, except this [13] which is less specific than I would like. But I do believe that this is just another neighborhood in Brown county.James.folsom (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. There have been too many values, so using XFDclosure is not feasible for this one. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 17:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandogo

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

Set of new geographic pages of villages of Burkina Faso created by User:Hisirmynameismahbeer. All of them seem to be added using copy-paste of a template and some very disputable sources. In this example, a completely unrelated Britannica entry is used as source. I started draftifying some articles and fixing the ones for which information can be found, but this seems a clear case of WP:TNT. Some of these places exist and are found in the 2006 census data (found here) but they are definitely not "towns", they are often located in a different district than the one in the infobox, and sometimes they are only districts of a city (which would not fulfill WP:NGEO). Broc (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Broc (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons added above:

Delete all per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia has had presistent problems with dubious geographical oneliners in the past, from California to name one example. You can take the time a user spent on making a particular set of oneliners, and multiply that time by hundreds or a thousand to reach the number of the hours it took to clean it all up. It is imperative to take a hard stance against mass-created geostubs with questionable verifiability. Geschichte (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL per WP:BURDEN. Fails WP:GEOLAND. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see at least two that are worth keeping - Katabtenga (based on sources in the article) and Dassouri (based on sources in the French article.) Habaza also has text but I can't verify it. I spot checked some of the other settlements and can verify some but not others - Louksi clearly exists, for instance, but Nemnin is a neighbourhood of Ouagadougou which doesn't pass GNG "on its face" in the article - so I'm happy with deleting the rest as a purely procedural concern, without any sort of prejudice on re-creation. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the reason why I opened this AfD and grouped all pages together is that verifying and sourcing all these articles (of which I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping) is a huge effort. As Katabtenga is a well sourced article, I will withdraw the nomination for it. Broc (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs more discussion since there is an opinion that some of the articles in this bundled nomination should be Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Sorry, but these should be nominated separately, bundling together could keep a more legitimate town. However I do agree there is a problem here, but the process of bundling all-together is a bit of a shit-show. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is keeping a bunch of copy pasted articles that nobody will likely ever nominate separately (I most certainly will not) and containing wrong information a better solution for the encyclopedia? Broc (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and nominate separately – It's already becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK here a bit. The nominator stated in a comment above that, "I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping". The nominator also stated that they don't want to do the work to nominate each article separately, but this is not a valid criteria for mass deletion. Yes, there have been problems with geography-related articles on English Wikipedia, but this is also not a valid criteria for deletion of this batch as some sort of default, based on the past history of other articles. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep and nominate separately – If you want them deleted, do the work and review them one by one. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very nice burden on WP:NPP who is definitely not overloaded already.^[sarcasm]~~This would create a huge burden on WP:NPP where editors need to review 50+ pages, all containing wrong or dubious information and poor sourcing, merely because some of these places actually exist and therefore fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly the editors arguing for a procedural keep above have forgotten to consider that these are a bunch of copy-pasted recently created pages from the same user (hence the grouping). Broc (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete all If someone wants to create articles, they should do the work and review them one by one rather than mass-produce single-line junk with an unreliable autogenerated source. These could also be redirected to List of cities in Burkina Faso or provincial-level articles like Gayéri (department). Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Most of these articles are badly problematic but are notable. I figured this out after I could confirm Louksi on a map, but couldn't find any sources (apart from one photo of a proposed building from an architect) until I poked over to the French site to see it was Lougsi (see [14]), meaning I verified Katabtenga, Dassouri, and Louksi. This gave me a hint that there are other misspellings in here as well, including Taonsgho [15] for Taonsogo, Goghin ([16]) for Goughin Nord, et cetera. Zékounga is clearly notable from the French article as well now that I look at it, and I've done what I can to rescue it mostly by providing a link to the French page. The only one I support deleting right now is Nemnin, because these are impossible to BEFORE without looking at the French wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandogo also has a link to the French article now and is a clearly notable town of over 6,000 people. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional confirmed notable places under GEOLAND using the french Wiki:

Nakomtenga - Nakamtenga

Tinsouka - Tinsouka

Goupana - Goupana

Dinkabara - Dinkabra

Babakou - Babakou

Cannot confirm Bangma is Bagma though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion or re-nomination of Pamno Ouidi, Nemnin, and Ayaraba, have confirmed these do not pass WP:GEOLAND. But I can confirm Zambanega. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I checked one of them on Google maps and found 100 or so small buildings. Mass nominations often catch well habitated places, and who knows maybe all of these places are habitated. Desertarun (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mengbi

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

After conducting a search, I found that the location you mentioned ceased to exist. In November 2015, Mengbi Township and Shuitianba Township were administratively merged to form Shuitianba Town. Therefore, this location no longer exists. I believe this entry meets Wikipedia's deletion policy, specifically criterion ten: Redundant or otherwise useless templates. Hence, I suggest deleting this entry. WYRRRR (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WYRRRR (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article with an infobox and references from the corresponding article in Chinese. Even if two townships have been amalgamated, an article about the structure prior to amalgamation can be valuable. Once notable, always notable. A populated place can be notable whether it is a small part of a municipality or occupies several municipalities. I don't know whether Mengbi is a township, a town, or both, and what the definition of those terms is in China. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless somebody can offer a better deletion rationale than this, and/or redirect to an article about Shuitianba if somebody can be bothered to make one. Firstly, this isn't a template, so deletion criteria for templates have nothing to do with whether it's keepable or not — and secondly, we don't automatically delete articles about things that formerly existed just because they don't still exist now. If we really just couldn't find anything more to say about Mengbi than just "it's a place that existed", then redirecting it to an article about Shuitianba could be viable if we had one, but we don't delete articles about places just because they've been merged into other places, because people might very well still want or need information about what Mengbi was. We're an encyclopedia, not just a directory of currently-existing things — defunct things still have legitimate reasons why people might be looking for information about them, so defunctness is not a deletion rationale in and of itself. We can redirect to the successor entity if there's really just not that much to say, but we don't delete articles just because the topic was merged into something else. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Perhaps your argument #2 can be strenghtened by mentioning Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? As for #1, the correct notability guideline would probably be Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). It would be good to consider whether this entity meets this one.

The current sourcing is still pretty poor. Once notable always notable - sure, but was this ever notable? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 04:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this article needs more discussion, not based on the deletion rationale but on the Piotrus' question about whether this location, prior to it's Merge, was notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Townships are a legal type of administrative division in China, so this would be notable via WP:GEOLAND. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, but the article for the new township needs to be created first. Jumpytoo Talk 02:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Broc (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerah, Western Australia

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

Place exists in census data but shows no population. Satellite images show no roads and no signs of human activity in the area. Does not fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Broc (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous census data and gazetteers should be checked. The population was probably greater than zero once. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The population was 5 in the 2016 Australian census. Also, it doesn't have to be populated/residential to be notable—for example, the area seems to be a proposed renewable energy hub[17].--Canley (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't know where you looked but I see roads and evidence of human activity. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see, coordinates on the page are way off. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's not a town, at least not according to the census, and the energy project seems to affirm this. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it meets the notability criteria per WP:POPULATED, which states Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. In this case, it is an officially recognised locality as shown on official map services like https://nationalmap.gov.au/ and https://maps.slip.wa.gov.au/landgate/locate/. Calistemon (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent of keeping articles like this. As an editor who often works on Western Australian places, if I'd noticed this article in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion, I would have redirected it to the relevant local government area (in this case the Shire of Broome), but the article has enough content now that this doesn't seem to be a good idea anymore. Graham87 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editing of the article, and the comments by Calistemon and Graham87 JarrahTree 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm withdrawing the nomination, thanks to the editors that added additional material to the page. Broc (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helsing Junction, Washington

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

It's been a little slow, so I'm going to AFD this declined prod. I've had some free time so I've kinda beat this dead mule to death, and will pass the carcass to AFD.

Helsing Junction is a railroad junction, and like many of these it had a post office.

The article itself has two sources: GNIS (no contesting it unreliablity) and Thurston County Place Names, which states it is a rail junction and mentions settlers but avoids committing on whether they live there. There is a picture of "Independence Rail yard at Helsing Junction". I can certainly understand how an editor in a hurry could turn this entry into a town. It's entry also adds "See Independence" implying this is in that place.

In terms of what the local newspapers say: This news article (2002) from the talk page discussion [18] describes it as the place that Rochester used to be known as. The reader will need to lift a little here as I'm unable to provide a readily available link.

The above article is about a church's 100th anniversary, and a similar article was also written about this church on the occasion of it 70th(1972). [19] It states the church was built about 3 miles from Helsing Junction which it says is at Independence.

Just based on this, this article ought to be merged/redirected with Independence or Rochester, I'm leaning toward Independence. But that should be a discussion in this AFD.

Here is a temporal sampling of some further articles that I think show this is only a junction: 1964 [20], [21]; 1923 [22] mentioned in a news report from Independence. James.folsom (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete GBook hits are almost entirely rail-related, except for a few having to do with geology. The cited placenames work his a picture of the station, but nothing indicates it's in a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This junction is in Independence, Washington, so I wanted to say just merge there, but really Independence is barely more than a named rural community that itself should probably be deleted or merged. I suspect that the later church news clip assigned it to Rochester because by then they had forgotten Independence existed.James.folsom (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be a legally recognised place. Desertarun (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [23] [24] [25], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Agletarang (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk)
Comment I’m not sure if this should be kept or not, but if kept it should be drastically culled. It is arguably useful for an English speaker to learn that Arnavutluk means Albania, but most of the items in this gigantic and largely pointless list are not exonyms at all, they’re just Turkish spellings or minor pronunciation changes from the local name. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [26] [27], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As indicated in the project's title, this text had been taken down after a brief discussion in 2009. Why it has been allowed to re-surface without anything of substance added to it will remain a mystery, which is probably best preserved. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a useful article. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article provides information to the reader. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every junk article "provides information to the reader," at least in the eyes of its creator. How do you use the information? —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can combine it with the Turkish language article. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly sources we can use that can be used to source the list, it's been discussed as a set, as I've shown. So in that sense, yes, it is "useful." SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It's useful to have it here!"; "Of course, it's notable!"; "There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage. // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only per WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroggins Draw, Texas

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

This article seems to fail WP:NPLACE given almost no information beyond statistics and coordinates is mentioned. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per this source,
Scoggins Draw, you should know, is not the name of a town. It’s the name of a valley. And there is no town in the valley of Scroggins Draw. There is no … anything in Scroggins Draw.
That's the most comprehensive bit of information I could find. Per topographic maps, it's a dry wash in the desert, not a populated place and certainly not a "community" as the county template says. Therefore, the article is a falsehood. Yes, it's the point where two interstates meet. But that's not a community or populated place, and unless there's something particularly special about this desert interchange, the article needs to be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the name of a valley, not a settled place, and the article has never claimed to be about a settled place, so WP:GEOLAND/WP:NPLACE doesn't have anything to do with this article. WierdNAnnoyed's article mentioned above also helps establish its notability as a WP:GEONATURAL location. Its primary usage appears to be to be as the location of the western terminus of Interstate 20 in my searches, and appears as such in the first sentence of the Interstate 20 article, among other things. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article ~~includes~~ included the Template:Reeves County, Texas template, which called the place a community, which is obviously wrong, which may have led to the confusion above. I've removed that entry from that template and removed that template from the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean having exactly one notable thing about it does not really satisfy WP:GEONATURAL either, let alone WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it's a valley and not a town, we need more than just a name to justify an article. I don't see any sources of substance, even with the lower bar of GeoNatural. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GEONATURAL which states a named natural feature could be notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" and "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" This article is virtually just stating coordinates and nothing else. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the I20 article The argument that this shouldn't be kept is a slam dunk, but it seems more sensible to redirect itJames.folsom (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James.folsom, can you provide a link to the "I20 article"? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still would like to see a link to this "I20 article" mentioned in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the link to Interstate 20 in my "keep" statement above. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to see if anybody there has highway sources that can be used to satisfy the lack of sourcing mentioned above. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, RecycledPixels, I don't know how I missed that! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article definitely needs more information. When I do a Google search on Scroggins Draw, there are numerous returns for a Scroggins Draw in Colorado. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is in texas not colorado. James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The articles for I10 and I20 already note that their intersection is known as Scroggin's Draw, which is all of the information that can be gleaned from this article - so there's nothing to merge or redirect to. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not redirect per above as neither I10 nor I20 should be considered a primary target. Instead footnotes can be added to their appearance in the I10 and I20 articles using the fwtx.com article as a ref. (I would suggest DAB instead if the Colorado version in Dinosaur National Monument were at all reliably sourceable as having been an official name -- but it isn't[28]) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwali

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Either delete or redirect it to Dehradun Municipal Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2024 (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/2024 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards may qualify as legally recognized places per GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GEOLAND. TheTankman (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get policy-based opinions with more elaboration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geography-related proposed deletions

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Geography==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin, Washington}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sleeth,_Indiana}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taggart,_Indiana}}