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

Green Dragon Canyon

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

This would appear to really belong in the Owyhee River article rather as a stub. Qwirkle (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilangkattuvalasu

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

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng

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

No sources, 2-sentence stub. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [1] [2] [3] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Park, New Zealand

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE, it is not a suburb and is it not recognised by Auckland Council nor the NZGB. NPLACE explicitly excludes census tracts. Below is a more detailed comment

Extended content

Huntington Park is a housing development from the 90s, it is not an official suburb, and is not a notable housing development either. Most of this article relies on original research and unreliable sourcing: Oneroof is a real estate website and not a reliable source. The 1998 map does not even show Huntington Park and is original research. The article on the The Hub shopping centre does not mention Huntington Park. The Countdown reference refers to it as being Woolsworth Botany Downs, again no mention of Huntington Park. Guy's Homestead is notable but only one reference involving it even mentions Huntington Park. Most mention it as being within either Botany or East Tamaki.

Traumnovelle (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Park, New Zealand - you continuously have articles such as [4] [5] [6] [7] which describe things as being within Huntington Park, and we would be deleting a well-developed article on some sort of technicality because it doesn't exist within a GIS system. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence mentions aren't able to establish notability. Please make an argument based on an actual notability guideline and not 'I like it'. The article can be redirected to an actual suburb as an alternative to deletion to maintain the content that exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear it's one of the suburbs of Auckland per NPLACE which is one of our lowest notability standards, listed on government websites such as [8]. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auckland. The sources currently cited on the article itself do not show WP:SIGCOV about the place, instead they are isolated events that occurred there such as the fire at the Guy’s homestead or superficial mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Official census district, which alone would be enough for a keep. In any case, populated placed that can be shown to exist are almost never deletion candidates. To quote WP:POPULATED, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Like most cities in New Zealand, Auckland doesn't have official suburbs. Traumnovelle has mentioned at Talk:Manukau#Merge proposal that suburbs not named on Auckland Council Geomaps are not official suburbs, but I am not aware of any statement from the council saying this, and if such a statement does exist, we can change the article to say "locality". Households in the area have addresses in "Huntington Park". Google maps and Apple maps include "Huntington Park", and so does my GPS.
In the "Extended content" section above, Traumnovelle calls Huntington Park a "housing development", but I think that term in New Zealand applies to mass builds of dwellings which have more than one household in each multi-story building, or where dwellings share walls with at least one other. This applies to the area around Haven Park, but that's only about a quarter of the area of Huntington Park. Traumnovelle also says the 1998 map does not show Huntington Park - that's because it's establishing that the suburb did not exist at that date. Before nominating this article for deletion, Traumnovelle made it a redirect to Botany, New Zealand without any prior merge proposal. The AfD was a response to my suggestion that they request a merge instead. A merge may make sense, although merging to Botany wouldn't be my choice, but to delete a populated area does not make sense, nor does redirecting to the city of almost 1.5 million people.-Gadfium (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dapdap

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

Similar issue as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cansolabao, Samar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). The only source here ([9]) mainly speaks of a landmark in the barangay, and does not thoroughly discuss the barangay itself. Possible failure to comply WP:GEOLAND. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:42, 27 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.) 08:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarangnan § Barangays, restoring current content when better sources are found. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarangnan § Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jujaksan

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

I can only find the book reference to this article pointing to the mountain. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; There's a surprisingly large amount of writing on it in the Korean language. [10] (The Chosun Ilbo), [11] (Yonhap News Agency), [12] (NewsPim), [13] (Seoul Finance),[14] (Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture). 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you put there don't meet the significance of Jujaksan being added on article. This does not tell what Jujaksan is about. Something like a history, legacy, or even a sufficient background will achieve its notability here. This also mentions the mountain, but it doesn't state specifically what the mountain is about and it's characteristics, besides people visiting the Korean mountain, which is mainly what the sources are about.

Let me step aside from the rambling for a second here, according to WP:NMAG, it clearly states that there needs to be reliable, independent sources that can fit into the article. Those are good sources for information, but not specific to this article because it doesn't directly state what the mountain is about. Normanhunter2 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind the tone, bordering on preachy. NMAG is about the notability of periodicals and not places/mountains. Some of the sources I gave discuss the mountain itself, not just tourism for it. If not satisfied yet, I'll provide some more.

[15] This source discusses the height, characteristics (number of peaks) of the mountain. [16] This discusses the flora on it. [17] This has an overview description of the mountain and its facilities.

I found these after less than a minute of googling in Korean. I'm assuming you're using machine translation, please give it a few gos in Korean yourself. If there's anything missing I'll do more googling until you're satisfied. I'm very confident, based on the unusual sheer density of the sources on this mountain (Korea has a ton of mountains, many are obscure), that this one is notable. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out article more with sources. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champavati Fort Chachaura

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

No sources given, only one I could find with a WP:BEFORE was this, of which I'm not sure of the reliability. I don't think it meets GNG, but I'm not good at navigating Hindi-language sources so I hope to be positively surprised if there are other sources on it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it likely doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT as it only appears to be protected on a state, rather than national, level. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously moved to draftspace as Draft:Champavati Fort Chachaura and then recreated in mainspace. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is unsourced, only two sentences, and shouldn't be in mainspace. I'm happy deleting or draftifying on those grounds without looking to see if it passes GNG without any prejudice towards its recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been draftified and recreated, so can't really be draftified again per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is for unilateral draftifications, I don't think a draftify result here would be unilateral. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. This should be merged with Guna District. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsgate, British Columbia

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

There's not a single reliable source online to put in this article, and it seems like nothing more than a small stub. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/offices-bureaux/536-eng.html

Would the Canadian Border Control as a source do the trick? It may be a small article but if you could find a source, it might not be worth deleting. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing doesn't really matter as long as the content can be easily merged to the border crossing article: there's no reason to split it into one article for each side of the crossing, and another for the crossing itself. It just splits the sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.The article says nothing of significance that can't be included as a sentence or two in Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Athel cb (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per prior comment. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some content. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you also included the information at Moyie River, but I don't think this should be included here or that it justifies this article. This is not significant coverage, it just identifies the place, which is the border crossing area. They have 199 locations where water was tested, and this primary source data isn't the sort of thing that belongs in the articles of each sampling site. The border crossing article should certainly mention it's along the river though. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Pennsylvania

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

This article was created by Aearthrise by copy-pasting sections from five already existing articles [18]. As with other articles edited by this user, the sources that are not copied from other articles are outdated and/or have been falsely given a more recent date. In this case two sources were added the publication by Kohl is from 1856 and does not mention the German translation given (which is also grammatically incorrect) and does not describe these two regions with this single term. The second source has a false publication date (it was printed in 1899 not in 1971) and also does not contain the term. Only four articles link to this page, all of them articles from which information was copied to make this one. The are no inter-Wikilinks and a Google search links back to Wikipedia. I propose this article is deleted for these reasons as well as consisting of information already present on Wikipedia. Vlaemink (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely synthsis, not a cohesive topic. Please do not do this shit of just copying material from other pages and pretending it's its own article. Use appropriate summary style or excerpts if you want to reference other pages, rather than just introducing duplication with no new content. There is simply no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", you're just combining related topics. A more appropriate name might be something like Germans in Pennsylvania but not as an article that just copies content from elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of evidence of this region, and it's mentioned in scholarship. German Pennsylvania was a larger historical region where the Palatines and other Germans inhabited (which included Germantown settled by Francis Pastorius, and is where Benjamin Franklin lived), and it's also now used to refer to the parts of the modern Pennsylvania Dutch Country. You say there is no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", and that we should make a post called "Germans in Pennsylvania" (which we already have Pennsylvania Germans) but that's incorrect. There is ample evidence for German Pennsylvania, especially reading older sources (because it describes an older area since colonial times).
- The Centennial History of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Kutztown Centennial Association (Kutztown, Pa.) Kutztown Publishing Company, 1915 pg. 120:
- The Pennsylvanier was the leading mone-making paper of the county, because the language of the people was Pennsylvania German and all the sales of farm stock, commonly called "vendues," characteristic of German Pennsylvania to this day, were published in the German paper and well paid for.
- German American Annals ...: Devoted to the Comparative Study of the Historical, Literary, Linguistic, Educational and Commercial Relations of Germany and America Volume 2, Macmillan Company, 1899 pg. 43:
- Various strata of sources have been exploited in writing the history of the Germans in Pennsylvania- (1), the surface sources... (2), the German prints (consisting of early German prints issued in America and Germany presenting invaluable matter touching colonial events in German-Pennsylvania)
- The Pennsylvania-German, Volumes 3-4, Rev. P.C. Croll, 1902, pg.180:
- The first place the Germans are a most important numerical factor in our national life. German immigration began when on 6th of October, 1683, Daniel Pastorius and his company landed in Philadelphia and subsequently founded Germantown... Pennsylvania has always been a banner State of German immigration. It has been asserted it has been asserted that three-fifths of Pennsylvania have German blood running in their veins... A German Pennsylvania farmer by the name of Klein has recently held a family reunion. His four sons were present and their names had been changed to Kline, Small, Little and Short. There are today seven hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania speaking that homely and mellow Pennsylvania-German dialect, and as the Philadelphia Ledger said recently, "It were a pity if this dialect would soon die out."
- The Pennsylvania-German Society, Volume 6, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1896, pg.36:
- If these three of our eastern counties can boast of a group of men like these, who have done so much in but a single department of the modern sciences, it certainly furnishes good ground for laudable race-pride, and ought to put to shame that ignorant class of our country-men, who are wont to hold German Pennsylvania in much the same regard as Boeotia was held by the ancient Greeks.
- Pennsylvania-German Dialect Writings and Their Writers, Volume 26, Harry Hess Reichard, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1918, pg.65:
- For a Pennsylvania-German Kalenner which he edited in 1885 he wrote a longer poem in en parts entitled "Vum Flachsbaue." This is a veritable epic on the raising of flax in ten short cantos. This poem ought properly be illustrated with drawings of tools and implements found nowadays only on grandfather's garrett or in the museumns for, with flax-raising entirely out of vogue in German Pennsyvlania, or, whre it is still aised, by means of modern appliances, such terms as Flachs Britsch, Hechle, Brech, etc., are, to Pennsylvania Germans of today, words of a time that is past.
- Pennsylvania Farming: A History in Landscapes Sally McMurry, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017:
- One Pervasive type, though, seems to have some association with Pennsylvania German culture. It was so common that it has been dubbed the "Pennsylvania farmhouse" and used as a key indicator (along with the Pennsylvania forebay bank barn) for charting what geographers call the "Pennsylvania Culture Region." The "Pennsylvania farmhouse" occurs throughout German Pennsylvania, but many extant examples and good field data come from Adams and York Counties.
- This vernacular form seems to be strongly (though not exclusively) associated with German Pennsylvania, yet its cultural meaning is elusive.
There are many more citations for German Pennsylvania that I can give, but this number should be sufficient to demonstrate that the concept "German Pennsylvania" is established and notable, and isn't just "synthesis" as purported by Reywas92. Aearthrise (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to Vlaeminks charges about "outdated information," he doesn't make a case why the information from older books is outdated. He also claims I gave a false date of publication, but this can be disproven with the 1971 source here: [19].= Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aearthrise: You claim you have disproven that the source you added was published in 1899, some 125 years ago. Instead you reassert that your book was instead published in 1971 for which you provided a link. Could you please explain to me how this can possibly be correct, given that the author of this book (Julius F. Sachse) died in 1919 aged 77? Vlaemink (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making and argument that has nothing to do with what I said; I just pointed out that your claim that I added a false date was wrong, and I clearly showed the 1971 publication for the source. Books are republished all the time, and this is just a republication. Aearthrise (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that these are referring to a specific place or region, rather conceptually describing the state's Germans and where they live. I see this analogous to saying "Polish Chicago" or "Cuban Miami", referring to a population and culture. In your third quote, "A German Pennsylvania farmer" is combining two adjectives that he is a German farmer and a Pennsylvania farmer. Moreover, copy-pasting sections from other articles doesn't make a new article like this. Maybe start over in draft space so you're not just synthesizing content that was about the specific groups rather than the topic as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the term is both awkward and ambiguous, but there is no topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the quotes furnished above, I don't see a clear indication that "German Pennsylvania" is a well-defined geographical area, as opposed to a generic reference to parts of Pennsylvania where Germans live. Choess (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which honestly surprised me - given the quote and the academic search I performed, I thought I'd be arguing to !keep this article. However, none of the academic literature particularly contributes to notability, only using the term in passing without defining it, or is part of a single academic's research, including their masters/PhD dissertation. I just don't see enough continued usage of the term in scholarly papers that would allow us to write an entire article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao, Samar

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

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays.~~ Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.

I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of places named Sokil

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

List that's been a stub since 2010 consisting of solely red links with little chance of expansion. I initially merged the content to the disambiguation page Sokil but was opposed by Bkonrad due to the lack of any blue links. As an WP:ATD, I still support merging this content into that disambiguation page but in any case don't think this topic is notable enough for its own stand-alone article. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Ukraine. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sokil – the oblast links make up for the villages being red links, as WP:DABSTYLE says the link can be in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of the entries fail both WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL and would be removed if merged. As such, merging is functionally equivalent to deletion. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bkonrad. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of that statistics website is weird, but if I get it right, it expresses the population numbers in thousands of people, so this is a number of villages with population in the hundreds, and at least one over a thousand? That's completely normal WP:POTENTIAL, so they should be listed in their higher level administrative unit article and these entries merged into Sokil (disambiguation). The Ukrainian interlanguage link from Sokil shows that they are included there and mostly have articles. --Joy (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy reason to delete. This page is no less notable than any other in Category:Set index articles on populated places in Ukraine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Runningtiger. Agletarang (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter - this is a valid disambiguation page and all of those villages could potentially have articles written about them, so any possible option as long as we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balghar

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

This has been in CAT:UNREF for 16 years. I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editor created article in 2008 with two un-sourced edits, and then never edited on Wikipedia again. Lots of subsequent editors since then, but no one has provided sourcing. — Maile (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - agree wit above. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to exist and meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been discussed in several scholarly articles (perform an easy search on Google) and clearly meets WP:GEOLAND, though I think most sources won't be in English. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of islands of Estonia. (non-admin closure) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosurahu

(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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of islands of Estonia. Actually many one-sentence articles in Category:Islands of Estonia should be redirected to the aforementioned list--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I will be happy to use AWB to redirect the other useless non-notable one-liners in the category. Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of islands of Estonia. But, I do not agree that AWB should be used as a blanket as suggested by Reywas92, as some of the "non-notable one-liners in the category" of articles are actually notable and can be enlarged with sources. ExRat (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify them then. Anyone is welcome to restore from a redirect and add sources. It's a utter joke to have dozens of these junk one-liners and to think mass-produced pages need individualized discussion. I would not redirect any pages with sources, only those like this one or Sokulaid with no content or sourcing at all. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, conversely, you can identify which ones you wish to redirect then; and anyone is welcome to enlarge an article and add sources to articles that are already created and are notable instead of a mass redirect to all island articles which you deem are "non-notable". While I agree that many of these articles can be redirected, I disagree that a blanket mass redirect is in order. As I stated, many of these articles that were created (most, seemingly, by User:NielsenGW), are actually notable per WP:GEONATURAL. Even Sokulaid is possibly notable per WP:GEONATURAL, as it has a listing at EELIS Infoleht. So, yes, discussions do need to take place. I'm not opposed to redirects when appropriate. I am opposed to mass redirects without proper discussions. ExRat (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with mass redirect. The linked to policy says that "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Many of these islands clearly (according to this) should not have their own articles. The listing is not "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". Obviously, a few of these articles actually are notable, I think that anything where at least 2 non-WMF sources can be found through google could be redirected without a discussion each and every time. @ExRat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This particular discussion should be focused on Nosurahu. A mass redirect should be an entirely separate discussion, not decided on this article's deletion discussion page. ExRat (talk) 02:02, 27 June 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.

Loch Lomond (Illinois)

(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]
Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom

(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]

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Hill, Indiana

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current only sources is the GNIS, which has been ruled unreliable/not counted as official legal recognition by WP:NGEO. Likely just a hill. OpenStreetMap puts the label right next to the cemetery, on the outskirts of Brazil, Indiana. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cottage Hill was one end of an interurban streetcar line to Harmony, Indiana.^[1] that opened in 1893 and probably went out of business in the 1920s or 1930s. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa

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]

A Google Book search shows it's been discussed in parliament, is the site of a mango farm which has been studied a bit, and was on a map produced by a United States scout as early as 1902. But it doesn't have a page in Tagalog and further sleuthing was unhelpful. Not sure what to do here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calamba, Laguna. There is not enough WP:SIGCOV right now for a separate page. Prof.PMarini (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memadangu

(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]
BrigadierG provided a link to 1981 census data above which contains data of Memadangu on page 150. Population 1,642 back then. However, it's only a subdivision of the village of Arakuzha. While it is a legally recognized populated place per WP:GEOLAND, I wonder if we should have pages of individual village subdivisions. I – perhaps unorthodoxly – suggest a Merge to Arakuzha. Broc (talk) 15:16, 22 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!} 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cited in administrative reports which searched for graphite in the 1960s, listed in directories of rubber estates as a town, but most importantly cited in the Indian census: [20]

Geography-related proposed deletions

^ Fisher, Vicky. "When the trains stopped" (PDF). Bell Memorial Public Library.

[1] Fisher, Vicky. "When the trains stopped" (PDF). Bell Memorial Public Library.

[1]