Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Geography[edit]

Nosurahu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Struggling to find 3 sources not some WMF project or copying off it, not 1 source of in-depth coverage at all. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond (Illinois)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, Asia, India, and Manipur. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be moved to Wesea, as the base title does not exist and the current title misuses the parenthetical for an acronym. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21#Category:Wesean_National_Leaders is related to this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that any of the sources use this term. It is not made up by the article creator, but all the sources I can find are referring to rebel militant groups (Times of India discussing a group). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow roomers[edit]

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

(Note: my PROD was removed.) Not a notable term. According to the source in the article, which only mentions the term once in a quote, the term was made up by John Fraser Hart, and I could not find any record of this term being used by anyone else. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Social science. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made-up topic or possible hoax. The single "source" was added 12 years after creation and does not support the term, it merely uses the familiar "elbow room". Could not find any sources that use the term. –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t a hoax; the newspaper article (not fully accessible from the link in the Wikipedia article) quotes the professor who states he made up the term “elbow roomers”. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accessed the article using the Wikipedia Library. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ONE source used for an article is a rather thin argument for notability. I also don't find anything else that uses this term, other than this list [1] on a website for architects. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete One fellow's phrase which didn't catch on. GBook hits, save one, are all either a single children's book or are people complaining about tables too close in restaurants; even with that there are less than ten hits. For all I know there may be a widely-used term for these people, but this isn't it. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: the dePRODder’s comments can be found on the article talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The term appears to be lightly used in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS across a handful of sources to mean different things: people who look for more space in the suburbs (ArchDaily), components of a masonry structure (A'Design Awards), people who jostle for space (Saltman), and people looking for more space in restaurants (Zagat). None of these amount to WP:SIGCOV and there's no evidence that the term is in circulation to mean what the article says it means. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Acres, Mamaroneck[edit]

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

Non-notable location within Mamaroneck, New York. Only thing I can find out about the place is that a 2021 trench collapse that killed a worker occurred there, but I doubt that alone would pass the notability criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Hill, Indiana[edit]

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

An area on the west side of Brazil, I'm not getting reading on whether it was ever considered a town unto itself. What I can see of it looks like maybe a neighborhood, maybe just a locale.... Right now it's just a phrase on a map and the name of a cemetery. Mangoe (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flindt Landing station[edit]

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

Non notable whistle stop on the Canadian National transcontinental line. Not even a stain station, this is just a spot along the tracks where the train will stop and let you off. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from independent sources. Provided sources mention it as a dot on a map, nothing more. Astaire (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate list of stops (if one doesn't exist, create it first). Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Havana, Oregon[edit]

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

aka Havana Station

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

PROD was removed without comment, but this place is obviously non-notable and never was. Sources consist of GNIS (not sufficient for notability) and a trivial one-word mention in a 1913 magazine ("The first section extends from Pendleton to Havana station, a distance of eight miles"). Satellite view shows empty farmland; topo maps from the 1930s suggest this was never a community but rather a rail siding possibly with a flag stop for local farmers. That is a far cry from a "community" and the article thus fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del -no reliable evidence that there is such an uninco community.- Altenmann >talk 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for anyone who isn't sure why GNIS data is considered unreliable (like me before I googled it), see Wikipedia:Reliability_of_GNIS_data Mrfoogles (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone can find at least one reliable source describing this: in an ideal world there would be another source that this wasn't a town but the fact that no one can find any mentions of it outside of GNIS means that it fails GNG, and is impossible to write an article about, anyway. Topo map review is also convincing, so probably not an actual place. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The PROD had to be successful. Agletarang (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did User:Valfontis have an actual reason for the prod removal on a page that is blatantly false? Reywas92^Talk 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly false? Huh. What follows is a personal rant and not based on Wikipedia policy. Don't come at me, this is an essay, not an argument to keep Havana, Oregon. I haven't even looked at it yet to see if there's anything I can do. I pulled the Prod because WP:WHOAHOLDUPTHEREPARDNER. It's all I had time to do.

Look, I'm thisclose to retiring because of the deletionist bent in the Wikipedia geography area lately. Researching and upgrading articles where the info is not easily accessible takes hours (newspaper archives, books, etc.). I just finished a year of a 2nd bachelor's degree in geography. I'm busy, I'm experienced, and I'm tired. I'm not a hack. It's possible I misjudged the importance of this place, which was likely one I wrote due to it appearing on a "funny place name" list (likely included because: "oh look it's like Havana, Cuba, neat!"). Which doesn't mean it's not also possibly notable.

I'm thinking of ways to include geography information in the encyclopedia that isn't available anywhere else, that isn't a "random compilation" of information, etc. (Possibly upmerge to an article about the railroad, separate article on geography of Foo, etc. [note that IMO upmerging to a county article is silly]--also note that I don't know if this is "allowed", I am just brainstorming.) I had planned to work today on Glenwood, Lane County, Oregon as that place is actually notable, so I'm going to do that. I have a track record for writing well-sourced articles. (GNIS used to be considered an OK source BTW, I accept that it's not anymore.) Which is meaningless, I understand that, but I swear the tone of these geography discussions have become really nasty. I'll either get around to improving this article, or not, but this ain't no Blue Bucket Cow Camp, Oregon. I'm more into building up than tearing down. YMMV. WP:AGF, y'all. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I took a look. I likely created the article because it is linked here: Oregon Route 335. What follows is a tangential discussion, not a !vote: As part of a named highway, if we are still in the business of doing a service to our readers, one might idly wonder what Havana, Oregon is all about, and want to click through and read about it. At least I think like that, and like having info at my fingertips. That said, there was an irritating propensity by the road folks to insist on redlinking to places that are not places, and this may have been an attempt to "place-ify" a redlink. I made a vow to back off from road articles for this reason and the fact I found it impossible to unlink things in the templates. I understand many of the road folks have left, so maybe it will be easier? So. I need to do more research on the individual notabilty, but it's *possible* including the info on Havana in the article about the named highway might not be the worst idea. Valfontis (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings were intended. As a geography nerd myself, I appreciate the work that you're doing, and if there are reliable sources about this place then we can absolutely have an article. But I think the bar for article creation needs to be higher than "there is a redlink". Sure, the Oregon 335 article says "community", but with a little research it's obvious this isn't a community and never was. The USGS topo maps [2] show a rail siding in 1935, and a rail siding with a gravel pit in 1966, the nearest building being nearly a mile away. Today the railroad is gone; Havana is just a bend in the road. Thus, saying Havana "is" an "unincorporated community" is false on both fronts. Havana "is"n't anything outside GNIS. If sources appear then we can re-create the article, but absent such sources, we have nothing to say and we're propagating likely false information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"higher than 'there is a redlink'". Yes, this is obvious to me, sorry if it didn't come across to you that way. I don't start articles if I don't think there's something there. See my next comment. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am presenting this not as a !vote, just for further information. It's really hard to search up something that has the same name as the situation in the Spanish-American War this station was likely named for, and a popular cigar. However, here are over 50 trivial mentions of Havana (station) between 1897-1922 as place to go to, be from, leave from, be born in, live near, die in, etc. It's a place. If it doesn't rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia, fair enough, but is (was) a place. It's a place with not much more than a grain elevator and it was a regional wheat shipping point. Nobody seems to have written about it, even our beloved Oregon Geographic Names. I'm sure there are some primary sources about the naming decision by the OR&N but I'm not willing to go to that kind of effort unless it's for master's thesis. I'm taking break from trying to find the magic citation that gives weight to a "keep" argument. But this is what I have for now. I'm leaning towards a merge to the apparently nonexistent section about this rail line in the parent railway article. Valfontis (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's not much of a place, but it was referenced locally as place in a place with very few places (see my newspaper.com clips linked above). I added a bit of info based on my research and removed the now-inaccurate (per the demotion of GNIS as a reliable source) information. If deleted, I think a redirect and a brief mention in the Havana-Helix Highway article would be appropriate.

A few notes: I created this article 15 years ago, in good faith, when GNIS was considered a reliable source (and was acceptable to determine if something was a "populated place"). I selectively and thoughtfully created articles based not solely on this source but as proof of existence, coords, etc. Some places just don't have that much to say about them. If "perma stubs" are a problem (where is the community consensus on that these days?), that's OK, but think about how the info could be included elsewhere. The work of a few editors aside, these place articles, at least as far as Oregon is concerned are not "GNIS data dumps" or some other attempt to fill up the encyclopedia with useless crap. I am here to build an encyclopedia. If we could tone down the rhetoric about these articles about human settlements implying the article creators are some kind of sadly misinformed confused uneducated bumpkins, and just focus on the content, and how to improve it, we could really up the civility quotient in these AfDs. Think a place article needs deletion? Propose solutions! Where might the info fit better? Is the county article the best place to put a random blurp about a place? Also make sure you are doing the required redlink cleanup. Do quality work. If it's a bullshit place, it's a bullshit place. Most of these articles aren't that.

Request: someone please link me to "I peered at the map and determined the truth about this place" policy, as that seems to be original research. Maps are a great place to start! But I'd caution the nominator to use a more robust approach to WP:BEFORE and offer better proof (what did you check?--e.g. Google Books, JSTOR, etc.--what did you find?) before making such strong statements about how unplacelike a place is. Notability is not temporary, and history topics prior to about 2000 are notoriously hard to research on the web. I realize this is a marginal case, but sources can be found. WP:FUTON is roughly applicable. At some point I'll add this info to an article about the Pendleton Branch line of the Union Pacific Railroad as that is the reason this place exists. I need to check in with the railroad folks. Building an encyclopedia takes time. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by southernmost point[edit]

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

Original research list that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST I am also nominating the the related North, East, and West articles.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do not seem to be any sources cited for the co-ordinate locations in any of the articles. However, I think the article itself should not be deleted. The concept of the extreme latitudes and longitudes of a country or region is definitely a notable subject, and the concept of compiling and comparing different extreme points in a list should also therefore be notable. Are not some of these locations/points only notable because they are the extreme points of that location? Are you going to delete Extreme points of Africa and other articles at the same time? Spiralwidget (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument applies exactly to that one, so yes? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep all. I agree with Spiralwidget that extremes of latitude and longitude are notable, and therefore listworthy. BD2412 T 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Assuming that the sourcing can be coughed up, this could just as well exist as a single article with the four extreme points of each country, sortable by each column (NESW). It would not surprise me to learn that there is already a list of countries which contains the information, or for that matter a list of countries by some geographical property to which these data could be added (e.g. a list ranked by area). Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Pelau (micronation)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. While I don't have access to Micronations (Ryan et al. 2006), the CBS News article doesn't mention Pelau at all. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't give anything either, except, when the term "micronation" is removed from the search, a lot of misspellings of Palau.

Even assuming the 2006 book does indeed mention Pelau, a single book mentioning it (along with many other such micronations) isn't enough for GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. The Micronations book is accessible through the Internet Archive ([3]) and Pelau is not mentioned anywhere. Astaire (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Looking at the page range given (pp. 90–93), the book appears to talk about the "Principality of Vikesland" and the "Great United Kiseean Kingdom", but no mention of Pelau at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly a hoax as stated above, plus the page creator had a similarly-named page (misspelling of another country) speedy deleted a month ago: [4]. I would say speedy delete if an admin hadn't already removed the CSD tag. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Mccapra (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both sources fail WP:SIGCOV. Numberguy6 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note ongoing sockpuppet investigation. This page and Muhammad Louqman have had consistent issues with sockpuppeting before. This should be speedy deleted imo 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballymoreen (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There are now only two articles about this topic: Ballymurreen (also known as Ballymoreen), an article which includes the electoral district; and Ballymoreen (townland). See Talk:Ballymoreen (disambiguation)#Merger proposal which appears to have been executed. A disambiguation page is therefore not now required (WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any other uses on GeoNames, Wikidata or Geograph search. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England supercity[edit]

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

This article was originally a duplicate of a now deleted Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis But was renamed from Manpool (a goofy portmanteau of Manchester and Liverpool) to Northern England Supercity, increasing the scope of the article. The article now seems to be about two things, one a proposed Northern England Supercity from 2004 which went nowhere (a topic which I think fails the General Notablity Guidelines) and the Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis (Manpool) and uses original research to combine the two ideas into one article. Eopsid (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it doesn't meet WP:GNG and while the article has been changed since, I pointed out in the talk concerning the move that the references aren't great and point to WP:SYNTH. Orange sticker (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carreg yr Halen[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage - I could only find this article; everything else is trivial mentions when discussing Menai Bridge. While its location is sourced, that doesn't make it notable, and the rest of the information in the article is unsourced and I can't find it anywhere else, so is probably original research. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wales and Islands. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a number of local sources exist and are quoted. The island marked one of the important ferry crossimg location of the Menai Strait before the suspension bridge was constructed. Meets the standard of WP:GEONATURAL. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NATFEAT. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Menai Strait: seems to be the best idea... For the dozen or so lines of text now in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menai Bridge. This little outcrop of rock clearly has more significance to the town than to the body of water, but that significance doesn't become notability because of WP:INHERITED. Claims of being an important crossing point would meet the mark if there was any verifiable sigcov of this fact, but I don't believe there has been. Doesn't meet GEOLAND, is a tiny tidal island in the middle of nowhere, insufficient content to be its own article. BrigadierG (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It's not clear that the claims of the article are true. The cite for the ferry fails verification, and really I have to doubt the utility of a tiny, bare island in such a service. If we have to have something I would to go with the strait, but don't see a merger of a likely inaccurate article. Mangoe (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet and two different Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results (source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a legally recognized administrative unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale dozens of barangay articles have been redirected to their city/town articles, and a few were deleted through AfD's. Too many barangays (numbering around 40,000) mean too many stubbish or poorly-referenced articles to maintain, leading to frequent vandalisms or addition of unencyclopedic content like lists of schools, hospitals, facilities, businesses, landmarks, or tourist attractions. The issue was last discussed here (admittedly, there was no firm and final closure). See also Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memadangu[edit]

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

Can't find anything but postal directories about this village — not even its coordinates. Unsourced since creation in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND - is a census designated place, has a post office, has government recognition. BrigadierG (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says that? Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty, but https://www.indiatvnews.com/pincode/kerala/ernakulam/memadangu as an example BrigadierG (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see https://www.indiatvnews.com/pincode/kerala/ernakulam/aluva-town-bus-stand. It doesn't mean we should have an article about the Aluva Town Bus Stand Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GEOLAND BrigadierG (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to know which source refers to it as a census designated place. Surely, the census itself would be the logical source, not the unuseful link you posted, and with the census, we would also have its population. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a delete until the failure of WP:V is addressed. The above link doesn't help with anything, and so far the discussions has yielded little else than WP:PERX. Google Maps redirects Memadangu to Mekkadambu, but that is southwest of Muvattupuzha, not southeast. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/29073/download/32254/29647_1981_ERN.pdf

It's a census-designated place BrigadierG (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions[edit]