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:
- 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, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Geography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20210712160651im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
watch |
Geography
Fatima II, San Jose del Monte
- Fatima II, San Jose del Monte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Latest discussion for barangay articles at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, retained the consensus that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles. In other words, barangay notability should be treated through case-to-case basis.
For this barangay, it is unsourced since March 2009, and no one attempted to improve this. More of a stub-like article, its information can be incorporated at San Jose del Monte instead. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Fatima III, San Jose del Monte
- Fatima III, San Jose del Monte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Latest discussion for barangay articles at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, retained the consensus that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles. In other words, barangay notability should be treated through case-to-case basis.
For this barangay, it is unsourced since March 2009, and no one attempted to improve this. It also has an unsourced (and potentially unencyclopedic) list of officials. Much of its information can be incorporated at San Jose del Monte instead. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Col de Chermotane
- Col de Chermotane ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Article is about seemingly unimportant valley and has no sources other than one single topographical map. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Hamlins Corner, Virginia
- Hamlins Corner, Virginia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Another batch of places that appear to be named road junctions leftover from the procedurally-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. All are sourced only to GNIS and topos only show a couple houses and a road junction for each. Searching brings up passing mentions to all three in databases, as well as for road junctions and landmarks for paving distances and such. Found some references to people living at Middletons Corner, but the sources for that seem to be referring to places elsewhere in the state.
This nomination also applies to:
- Hardins Corner, Virginia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Middletons Corner, Virginia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Prince Edward Glacier
- Prince Edward Glacier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Fails WP:GEOLAND Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: The information on where it drains, the derivation of its name, etc is "information beyond statistics and coordinates" (quoting from WP:GEOLAND). Solidly sourced little article, represented in several other wikipedias, worth keeping. PamD 09:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of glaciers in the Antarctic: I–Z. Knowing the Prince Edward Glacier is named after Prince Edward and its location is not substantive information beyond statistics and location, or else there is literally no named feature that would not meet GEOLAND. The eponym can be merged there. Reywas92Talk 00:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per Reywas, as it seems that about all we can reliably source this thing is where it is, that it drains a specific plateau, and that it's named after Prince Edward. I wouldn't consider that to be substantive coverage per Reywas. Hog Farm Talk 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per PamD JarrahTree 15:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for the simple reason that we have many dozens of glacier stubs of exactly this extent, and I see no cause to treat this one differently than the rest. Just take a few random samples from the above-linked List of glaciers in the Antarctic: I–Z and see what you get (note how the list is entirely bluelinked?). If there is to be a general consensus that glacier stubs of this size are unacceptable, then let's have a centralized discussion and sort out all of them, rather than introducing inconsistent treatment in bits and bobs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
San Miguel, Jordan
- San Miguel, Jordan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
A barangay article that resembles more of a directory or listing of establishments and landmarks than a real encyclopedic article. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.
For this barangay, it contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But most of it is essentially a directory, and this violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY rule. It does contain some sources, but these do not mainly talk about the barangay itself and are mainly about the landmarks that are listed here, thus all are not reliable. This article, therefore, should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte
- Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Stubbish (and directory-like) article of a barangay. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.
For this barangay, it only contains one external link to the 2007 mid-decade census (outdated!), and contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But it lacks other encyclopedoc content. It does contain a list of educational institutions and religious buildings, but see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Worse it lacks reliable sources. Thus this should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked.
Note that if this and the other article about another barangay of the same province are nuked, the category Category:Barangays of Camarines Norte may be colaterally deleted as an empty category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This one does appear to be a separate and recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. It's a village miles from the main population centre of the municipality and separated from other settlements by countryside. This would be the definition of a separate settlement anywhere else on the planet, so not to recognise it as one because it's in the Philippines makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: the consensus of Pinoy WP:Tambayan community has been clear. Barangays must be considered on case-to-case bases. I don't want another debate as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. The recognized settlements here are the 1,634 municipal divisions (cities and municipalities or Philippine towns), as opposed to thousands of largely-obscure barangays. Unless in your context you treat the 1,634 cities and municipalities of the Philippines as equivalent to Chinese prefectures or U.S. counties! (since below basic provincial or state-level) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I have already said, in the UK we treat every hamlet that is a recognised settlement as separate and have articles on them. They are all part of parishes, which are our lowest level of administrative unit, but they are still separate settlements. The same goes for any other country in the world (apart from, in your opinion, the Philippines). A settlement is a settlement, whether it is actually an administrative unit or not. Ironically, in the Philippines, these are actually administrative units of a sort, yet still you refuse to recognise them on Wikipedia. Which is, frankly, bizarre, and I do not understand your reasoning. It is clear that they meet the criteria of WP:GEOLAND, which is our main notability guideline on the subject. The problem is that "barangay" effectively has two meanings: a subdivision of an urban area and a separate village. They may be treated the same in the Philippines, but they are not the same in a Wikipedia context. The former are frequently not notable per WP:GEOLAND, but the latter are. You, however, seem to be assuming a blanket non-notability. GEOLAND, however, is quite clear on the matter:
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.
I see nothing that saysexcept in the Philippines
! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- @Necrothesp: that comparison won't work here. England's 10,449 civil parishes are dwarfed by the 42,046 barangays of the Philippines. Some towns, like Adams, Ilocos Norte, only have a meager number of barangays that can be counted by hand. In three Metro Manila cities (Caloocan, Manila, and Pasay), barangays are named numerically. Like Barangay 1, Barangay 2, Barangay 3, and sometimes up to Barangay 468 or Barangay 678. It is impractical to create articles on every one of them, especially if majority of them do not have reliable, non-blog-type sources on their own. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- You clearly have not read what I just wrote about the difference between urban neighbourhoods and separate villages. And an English rural parish can have several separate villages and hamlets; each one is considered to be notable on Wikipedia if it has its own identity. The same applies in any other country in the world. WP:GEOLAND is the standard here. India, for instance, has far more villages than the Philippines does, yet AfD has found every one to be notable if it is considered to be a separate settlement (no, not administrative unit, but settlement). Why exactly do you consider the Philippines to be an exception to this? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: if you contest the Tambayan consensus, feel free to submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan to WP:Deletion review forum. But I still stand that barangays are only notable by case-to-case basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- You clearly have not read what I just wrote about the difference between urban neighbourhoods and separate villages. And an English rural parish can have several separate villages and hamlets; each one is considered to be notable on Wikipedia if it has its own identity. The same applies in any other country in the world. WP:GEOLAND is the standard here. India, for instance, has far more villages than the Philippines does, yet AfD has found every one to be notable if it is considered to be a separate settlement (no, not administrative unit, but settlement). Why exactly do you consider the Philippines to be an exception to this? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: that comparison won't work here. England's 10,449 civil parishes are dwarfed by the 42,046 barangays of the Philippines. Some towns, like Adams, Ilocos Norte, only have a meager number of barangays that can be counted by hand. In three Metro Manila cities (Caloocan, Manila, and Pasay), barangays are named numerically. Like Barangay 1, Barangay 2, Barangay 3, and sometimes up to Barangay 468 or Barangay 678. It is impractical to create articles on every one of them, especially if majority of them do not have reliable, non-blog-type sources on their own. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I have already said, in the UK we treat every hamlet that is a recognised settlement as separate and have articles on them. They are all part of parishes, which are our lowest level of administrative unit, but they are still separate settlements. The same goes for any other country in the world (apart from, in your opinion, the Philippines). A settlement is a settlement, whether it is actually an administrative unit or not. Ironically, in the Philippines, these are actually administrative units of a sort, yet still you refuse to recognise them on Wikipedia. Which is, frankly, bizarre, and I do not understand your reasoning. It is clear that they meet the criteria of WP:GEOLAND, which is our main notability guideline on the subject. The problem is that "barangay" effectively has two meanings: a subdivision of an urban area and a separate village. They may be treated the same in the Philippines, but they are not the same in a Wikipedia context. The former are frequently not notable per WP:GEOLAND, but the latter are. You, however, seem to be assuming a blanket non-notability. GEOLAND, however, is quite clear on the matter:
- @Necrothesp: the consensus of Pinoy WP:Tambayan community has been clear. Barangays must be considered on case-to-case bases. I don't want another debate as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. The recognized settlements here are the 1,634 municipal divisions (cities and municipalities or Philippine towns), as opposed to thousands of largely-obscure barangays. Unless in your context you treat the 1,634 cities and municipalities of the Philippines as equivalent to Chinese prefectures or U.S. counties! (since below basic provincial or state-level) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. What on Earth is a hamlet again? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Jose_Panganiban,_Camarines_Norte#Barangays as plausible target. --Lenticel (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect per local consensus of the Philippines regional noticeboard and WikiProject. —seav (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have similar reservations to those of Necrothesp. We seem to be allowing a local consensus to override the general consensus that applies to everywhere in the world that legally-recognised populated places are considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect Such subdivisions of municipalities are not all automatically notable and need their own article. Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte lists its barangays and this can be redirected there. Reywas92Talk 04:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I think a redirect to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays is not very plausible because Labo and Talisay both have a barangay named "Santa Cruz". —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree to HueMan1. It is not plausible to redirect to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte if there are other barangays of the same name in other municipalities of the same province. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per Necrothesp's comment. NemesisAT (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays, then delete article, making that section look like Alcantara, Cebu#Barangays. Primary schools are already included in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Public Primary, while I'm not sure if we'd include day care centers in any settlement article. Nothing is lost save for that laundry list of barangay officials. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Vrbovačko Brdo
- Vrbovačko Brdo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Unpopulated location with no citations, fails GEOLAND dudhhrContribs 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. dudhhrContribs 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. There was indeed a village here, and records can be found in old censuses. It had 141 residents back in 1953 [1] and even a school class in 1963 [2] but it started downhill from there. It is mentioned in the book "Depopulation in Croatia" [3] having only 4 residents in 1991 and it's apparently abandoned by now. No such user (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - formerly populated place so passes WP:GEOLAND, article does need improving, though Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A google search of this toponym shows a page [4] on the Croatian Bureau of Statistics website which sadly doesn't seem to support deep linking, but does allow one to click through and search their database to confirm continuous settlement between around 1900 and around 1981 (happening to peak at 271 inhabitants in the 1953 census), and that on that year, this place became a hamlet of Blažević Dol (which still has a comparable population today). A search on https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ which is the map website of the State Geodetic Administration (another Croatian government entity) easily confirms the location. We have gazetteer articles on existing villages with much smaller population, so it stands to reason that there is sufficient potential here to keep this one, too. Worst case it can later be redirected to the existing place's article, when that one in turn gets created. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Joy: For a future reference, the DZS website allows you to save a query ("Spremi pretraživanje") and retrieve it by URL (works in Edge but not FF):
http://www.dzs.hr/App/PXWeb/PXWebHrv/sq/d522b4ea-ad2d-4a2f-bbf3-31100af7850b
As a matter of fact, we have a quite long, unsourced and contextless List of former populated places in Croatia. No such user (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Joy: For a future reference, the DZS website allows you to save a query ("Spremi pretraživanje") and retrieve it by URL (works in Edge but not FF):
- Keep. Appears to have once been a recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Parang, Camarines Norte
- Parang, Camarines Norte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Stubbish article of a barangay. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.
For this barangay, it only contains one external link to the 2007 mid-decade census (outdated!), and contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But it lacks other content, and worse it lacks reliable sources. Thus this should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Jose_Panganiban,_Camarines_Norte#Barangays as plausible target. --Lenticel (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Buttock Batu
- Buttock Batu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
No indication of notability. I couldn't really find any further information about this place. PepperBeast (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It's a village and so passes WP:GEOLAND. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment do you have some WP:RS that indicates it's a village? PepperBeast (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete- for want of reliable sources describing exactly what the nature of this location is. All we have is a name and a location, and that's just a statistical entry not an encyclopedia article. I've done some searching for sources for this article, including under different possible spellings of the name, and all I can find are WP mirrors and shady online travel agencies offering hotels in a geographically nearby city. Without anything substantial this is a no-go. Reyk YO! 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. A real existing settlement, nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. I would challenge the assertion that this meets WP:GEOLAND, since that guideline
"specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability"
and the only current references are a list and a database. –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- The guideline also states
"On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. "
The BGN source does this. Let's not get caught in excessive piety for words - the BGN source may have 'List' in its title, but it's actually a book length reference. While you're argument is valid, we're not forced to class it as a list for WP:GEO purposes. Also Buttock Batu is covered in other English sources such as imperial documentation. Though I'm not going to link to those as per deColonization, I'm not sure that 100% of Malaysians would find it non offensive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)- Comment the BGN source from the 40s calls it a village and describes its locatiion ([a]n interior village on the Sungei Segama west - northwest of Lahad Datu). It doesn't describe the village at all. The up-to-date BGN database only calls it a "populated place", and I can't find anything else to positively state that it's even that. Malaysia Geoportal doesn't mention it. PepperBeast (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, though it would also be valid to read the 40's BGN source as describing the settlement as a village, though I concede it's a brief description even if we count the location data. Anyway, if you want verification of the settlement's continued existence, it's on various sites like malaysiaplaces.net, or you can even see it yourself via the 2021 photos on this Google earth link. I'd not expect it to be on Malaysia Geoportal, with a few exceptions that seems to be more mainland Malaysia, missing even several famous towns & cities from East Malaysia, which is about a thousand miles away from the mainland. (Just in case you didn't know and feel bad, I was also unaware of this until a couple of years ago. Had an issue escalated to me at work where a client needed a face to face in Labuan. I was like "Just send Sabir bro." (Sabir being our man in Kuala Lumpur, and I knew he could spare a whole day for the mission.) They were like "Errr Feyd, I hope you know Labuan is like a 4 day round trip from KL." So embarrassing, we ended up sending someone from Aus. Fortunately, the good Colonel (Andrew D) has an expert knowledge of east Asia, so we can be guided by his opinion on the matter. So I remain of the opinion we should keep the article. If you wanted another reason beyond the policy based case, there's the fact that various GIS sites have feeds from Wikipedia, which might be broken if we delete the article. These things can be very valuable to tourists or botanists etc doing research in the area. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the BGN source from the 40s calls it a village and describes its locatiion ([a]n interior village on the Sungei Segama west - northwest of Lahad Datu). It doesn't describe the village at all. The up-to-date BGN database only calls it a "populated place", and I can't find anything else to positively state that it's even that. Malaysia Geoportal doesn't mention it. PepperBeast (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- The guideline also states
- Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- delete Actually looking at GMaps, what's clearly there is nothing but a large spread of palm forest. Either that, or the coordinates are inaccurate, because a half-mile to the south, there is something that might be construed as a "settlement", but it is quite peculiar looking and to my eye doesn't look anything like a village that's been there since the 1940s. It could just as well be a coconut plantation with dorms for the workers built pretty recently.
- Geonames has the same sort of reliability problems as GNIS does, and I suspect it's for the same reason: the latter was largely an exercise in map-reading and interpretation, and on top of that they pulled in stuff from even more problematic sources. Here the maps are not as good as US topos, and indeed, I couldn't find any maps of this area which I could determine to independent of Geonames/WP data, except for GMaps's aerials. Having banged my head on this stuff for years now (e.g., a long run of Somali villages) I'd just as soon preemptively delete all the "X is a spot on a map" entries like this, to be recreated if and when someone comes up with some substantive content. In any case this fails verification and notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Question. Is it possible that this is a misspelling of Butok Batu, a real village in Indonesia (but not one that Google Maps can find)? Butok is a much more Malay-looking spelling than Buttock. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a bad question, but it doesn't produce a satisfactory answer-- there is a Batu Butok, but it's in a completely different location, in East Kalimintan. PepperBeast (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Dobson, Kentucky
- Dobson, Kentucky ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Location about which I can find basically nothing about, I'm not sure that it meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. WP:RENNICK's 365-page directory of Johnson County places has a single passing mention to the Dobson (rr) Sta. when talking about the post office of Swamp Branch, Kentucky. Topos show a couple buildings and an oil well next to the railroad, and searching is primarily bringing up last names and basically nothing about this as a location. This one doesn't seem notable, despite the GNIS entry. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — Per rationale by Hog Farm. Celestina007 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Redrock Crossing, West Virginia
- Redrock Crossing, West Virginia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This one seems to have been a rail crossing, rather than an actual community. Sourced only to GNIS, the topos show a place where a road crosses the railroad with nothing there. Searching on newspapers.com brings up nothing relevant, and searching elsewhere brings up forks and mirror of Wikipedia and GNIS, along with a statement that a highway overpass went over the Penn Central tracks at Redrock Crossing and a passing reference to a picnic area at Redrock Crossing. No evidence this is or was anything more than a minor rail crossing, and it looks to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. unless someone comes up with some good stuff. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Irakli Abashidze street
- Irakli Abashidze street ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Non-notable street. Per WP:GEOROAD (emphasis added), local roads, streets [...] are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage
, which does not appear to be the case here, although anyone able to provide reliable sources in Georgian, feel free to prove otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Also nominating the following related page on the same grounds:
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I have added content and some references and i’m working to add more. About notability: Both streets are one of the most famous and prestigious ones in Tbilisi and I think there must be pages about them in wikipedia --Welaskesi (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Please review notability guidelines WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG; the matter does not revolve around fame or prestige. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. We need to apply common sense and not just quote non-existent "rules". These are large and significant streets in a country's capital city. They are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per others. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above comments. NemesisAT (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions added so far are unpersuasive because they do not cite the sources that establish notability for this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, fail WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG. Iamfarzan (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It is also described in the Georgia travel guide: on the way between the Caucasus and the Black Sea[1] Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Singhpura Khurd
- Singhpura Khurd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This article has only one source which explains a lot as from my search of finding information on this village, I have found nothing that can guarantee notability under GNG. We probably shouldn't have villages articles since they are too local and not every one of these places needs to have an article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND.
We probably shouldn't have villages articles since they are too local and not every one of these places needs to have an article
is basically a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument which goes against all guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC) - Tentative delete: The 2011 census handbook for Rohtak district does mention a village called Singhpura, but not a Singhpura Khurd (which I assume is a constituent hamlet of the village mentioned in the handbook). Singhpura would pass WP:GEOLAND as an officially recognized populated place, but I don't think Singhpura Khurd would. My assumption could be wrong though since I haven't looked anywhere else. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: My Google Maps analysis shows two neighboring villages less than a mile apart bearing the names Singhpura and Singhpura Khurd. However, the source that 3 kids in a trenchcoat provided us gives a very important detail, being that the total area of the village of Singhpura is 875 hectares. Measuring that area on Google Maps, it becomes only possible to reach 875 hectares once the village of Singhpura Khurd is added, along with the surrounding farmland. This proves to me that Singhpura Khurd is just a hamlet within Singhpura, and not an officially recognized village. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Bench, Idaho
- Bench, Idaho ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This is another case of an LDS ward which the church hoped would grow into a town but which apparently never did. It geolocates to a house which aerials show replaced an earlier building sometime in the decade after WW II. That earlier building would appear to be the church shown on topos. Other than that, the area is all farms, never seeming to change much over the decades. Our favorite LDS genealogical publication is the only source I've found, since searching is well-nigh impossible for so common a word, and I'm not willing to take their description of the place as a "small farming settlement" as imbuing a vague rural area with notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Bench had a population of 75, according to the 1909 Davis Encyclopedia, so it did grow into a small town, although the population clearly eroded over time (which is extremely common with small towns). The USGS has an entry for the community, listing it as a populated place, and reference works of the past note the community's population. WP:GEOLAND is thus satisfied: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." The deletion nomination appears to be based on observations of the current state of the community, but reference works of the past tell us this was a once-happening place. Since notability is not temporary, and since there are other encyclopedias which note this community, we likely should, as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Davis population figure, even taken at face value, does not show that Bench was a town at all; at best it shows that some area had that many people in it, but it doesn't characterize that area. For all we know, it could just represent all the farms whose mail was picked up at the Bench post office. We've been over the USGS entry many times: first, GNIS itself denies that it constitutes official recognition, and second, there are so many errors in GNIS, and its classification of "populated place" so broad, that we have deprecated it in AfD after AfD as far as the characterization of a place is concerned. The same story goes for old post offices.
- I've found old abandoned places, like Conda, Idaho, but the difference is in the documentation. In the case of Conda, the maps show it used to be there, and there is perfectly good documentation of its construction and removal. In the case of Bench, it seems to me that the best we can do is string together a location given by GNIS, an LDS ward, a post office, and a population of uncertain authority, and synthesize them into a town called Bench. And on some level there's no doubting a place called Bench, but there really isn't enough here to characterize it. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- "The Davis population figure, even taken at face value, does not show that Bench was a town at all; at best it shows that some area had that many people in it, but it doesn't characterize that area." No, it actually does, listing Bench, Idaho, under 'towns'. Bench also appears on the map in the same encyclopedia, not as "Bench PO", but as "Bench". We've got references calling the community a "small farming settlement" and a town. Clearly, this was a community, not a post office, as post offices don't have populations. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've found old abandoned places, like Conda, Idaho, but the difference is in the documentation. In the case of Conda, the maps show it used to be there, and there is perfectly good documentation of its construction and removal. In the case of Bench, it seems to me that the best we can do is string together a location given by GNIS, an LDS ward, a post office, and a population of uncertain authority, and synthesize them into a town called Bench. And on some level there's no doubting a place called Bench, but there really isn't enough here to characterize it. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete As it stands the only notability is from a 1909 encyclopedia showing that the town had a population. It should have at least three significant reliable sources to verify its population and thus notability, and none of the other sources do that. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 21:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete - all we really have here are the statement in the canal book cited in the article that however the Davis Encyclopedia defines the scope is as that it had a population of 75. My searching brought up some passing mentions that aren't very helpful, and a number of fairly trivial references to the "Bench ward". Looks to me like this could well have just been a vague, undefined area based on the LDS ward. I'd probably have given this one the benefit of the doubt if I were nominator, but I'm not seeing the bases for an article here. Redirection to Gem Valley#Geography might also be okay, as it is briefly mentioned there. Hog Farm Talk 19:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Raft River, Idaho
- Raft River, Idaho ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This one can be perhaps chalked up to the map makers themselves, as it's clear from looking backwards through the topos that "Raft River" acquired its present name recently, I have to guess from the building with the big "Raft River Store" sign on it, the only structure at the site. Earlier topos also show a single building, but call the spot "Yale". I couldn't find anything about it under this name, but aerials also show a single building with a drive pulling off the main road to it, suggesting that the older building was also a store. At any rate I couldn't verify that this was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: The interstate exit for this place says "Raft River Area". It seems to be the name applied to this rural agricultural area around the exit.[5] (news report from "Raft River" about flooding in 2017).--Milowent • hasspoken 19:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would imagine that "Raft River area" refers to the Raft River itself. The picture in the article is of the store. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Navjivan (Neighbourhood) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Unreferenced since 2012. One sentence article. Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GEOLAND. Fairly small neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Navjivan is not in them. See Zone/Ward list here or on Amdavad Municipal Corporation. A case similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabirchowk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Nagar (Ahmedabad). - Nizil (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ahmedabad: A bold redirect should have been enough, but since we are here, let's go ahead with this. JavaHurricane 05:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @JavaHurricane:, there is no point in redirecting it to Ahmedabad either.-Nizil (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unless someone proves that the place has a legal recognition. Redirecting an unsourced stub is not appropriate when its not even mentioned in the target article. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: There is currently consensus that this article should not be kept but less consensus about whether or not a redirect is appropriate under WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, mentioning this at the Ahmedabad article would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Black Sea–Caspian Steppe
- Black Sea–Caspian Steppe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This huge article is tagged as unreferenced since May 2020. I looked into its history to see if vandals deleted references and noticed that in an early version the page creator wrote "There appears to be no book in English about this region. Sources can be found in the linked articles.", i.e., basically admitted WP:SYNTH. Russian Wikipedia lede says "Понтийско-Каспийская степь (Причёрноморско-Каспийская степь) — огромная степь..." (The Pontic–Caspian steppe (Black Sea- Caspian Steppe) is a huge steppe...) I.e., the "owners" of the most of the steppe use these terms interchangeably. Google search gives a miserable number of85 unique hits for the term, mostly its usage, with no in-depth coverage of such a huge and allegedly important area. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Merge with Southern Federal District: This seems to be the mother article. Integration into Southern Federal District seems to be a better idea if we can find references for a lot of the historical and geographic statements made in this one. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)- bad idea on 3 counts (A) merging a geographical subject into an administrative subdivision that can change (b) merge unreferenced text (3) redrecting a vague geographical area for which definition there are no sources into an administrative subdivision. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
KeepNeutral Unless someone provides a stronger reason for deletion. When I look at this I see a huge amount of excellent material about a geographic area. I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. So weakness in that latter area is not very indicative of anything. I don't have the expertise in this area or related article to know how this should be covered, but what I see is a huge amount of good material about a geographic area which is probably slam-dunk wp:notable. Doubly so with the extra emphasis of Wikipedia's gazetteer function set out in the 5 pillars policy. And paucity of coverage by the exact title of the article is not an indicator otherwise. What this is needs is experts/ editors from this area deciding, not an AFD with the above-described lack of substantiated reasons to delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)- That the term does not have coverage in sources (only occasionally mentioned in an unknown meaning) is not enough reason? Yes, the user did an immense job... of original research. Just the same I can spend an immense amount of work to describe the Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands , with all real rivers and boroughs, but will it mean that wikipedia must have it? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, "must have it" is a higher bar than the standard. I do agree that your point about Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands points out a valid concern..... if an editor invents an subdivision and finds sources relevant to it, that that alone isn't enough. But the other extreme would be to require sources that use the exact name of the article. I think that the best question/answer would be whether the sources treat the topic of the article as a distinct subdivision. That would address the wp:notability questions which is the main criteria regarding a guideline-based deletion here. My own opinion would be to see if someone familiar with the Wikipedia articles for that area feels that this topic should have a separate article. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm changing my position from "keep" to "neutral". The change is because of offsetting concerns that I see no realistic prospect of this material getting sourced, whether it be in a separate article or via moving into another article. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, "must have it" is a higher bar than the standard. I do agree that your point about Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands points out a valid concern..... if an editor invents an subdivision and finds sources relevant to it, that that alone isn't enough. But the other extreme would be to require sources that use the exact name of the article. I think that the best question/answer would be whether the sources treat the topic of the article as a distinct subdivision. That would address the wp:notability questions which is the main criteria regarding a guideline-based deletion here. My own opinion would be to see if someone familiar with the Wikipedia articles for that area feels that this topic should have a separate article. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — Does not seem to be recognized as a distinct geographical entity, as opposed to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Searching for the name in Russian returned a whopping 7 results, all of which were Wikipedia mirrors. There could always be print sources out there that specifically discuss this area as a discrete concept, but given the term's utter absence on the internet I'm doubtful they exist. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: So, is it real, or is it OR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete in absence of sufficient sources that treat this as a recognized unit. The Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands comparison above is useful to illustrate the problem. I remember we had a very detailed article at AfD some time ago about a putative concatenated watershed running the entire range of western Europe; the arguments that led to deletion were the same - synthesizing lots of details does not make up for absence of real-world treatment of the topic per se. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The user who created this article seems to be a hoax account. Their user page starts with the Italian saying "Se non è vero, è Ben Trovato", which translates to "Even if it is not true, it is a good story". Not a good start. The username is Benjamin Trovato, clearly a reference to the saying. This is not the only big article without sources that the user created, apparently this is all they do, and in their talk page there are several users complaining about this behaviour. See for example History of the western steppe, History of the central steppe, and History of the eastern steppe. Now the topics are all obscure and I can't verify whether the user is just making shit up, but I'm not impressed with the quality of the prose and the content of the articles. Tercer (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Commenting on only on the hoax account concern, as I noted at the beginning, I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. Several years back I worked with them quite a bit in a certain topic area and they did an immense amount of research and contributed an immense amount of material which I know to be correct. And most without providing references/ cites, even though we were discussing the specific books that they were taking the material from. Also I think that them having 21,000 edits spanning 13 years further reinforces that it is not a hoax account. Again, this is only to address that one concern, not to argue for keeping the article. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'll take your word for it that it is not a hoax account, merely lazy with sourcing. I won't change my !vote, though, as we still don't have any sources for this particular article, despite the best efforts of the other editors. My guess is that we're dealing with WP:SYNTH here. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Commenting on only on the hoax account concern, as I noted at the beginning, I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. Several years back I worked with them quite a bit in a certain topic area and they did an immense amount of research and contributed an immense amount of material which I know to be correct. And most without providing references/ cites, even though we were discussing the specific books that they were taking the material from. Also I think that them having 21,000 edits spanning 13 years further reinforces that it is not a hoax account. Again, this is only to address that one concern, not to argue for keeping the article. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Looks like time to close Open for 12 days, 4 or 5 "deletes" and one "neutral" and zero "keeps". North8000 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Vista Valencia Golf Course
- Vista Valencia Golf Course ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Run of the mill golf course, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Almost all independent sources seem to be just routine golf course directory listing stuff and passing mentions, i.e. zero significant coverage, so this fails GNG; local interest only; subject is adequately covered in the Valencia article, which only mentions its existence. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I created this article because Valencia Country Club (just 2 miles (3.2 km) north of Vista Valencia Golf Course) already had an article. Based on my personal experience, Vista Valencia is better known in Santa Clarita than the Valencia Country Club, although Valencia Country Club did host the AT&T Champions Classic. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at notability for that other course, but hosting a major tournament would be very helpful for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
List of country subdivisions by population
- List of country subdivisions by population ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
WP:OR. This is made blatantly obvious by the fact that it cobbles together figures from different years, from 2017 to 2021 for one table and from 2011 to 2021 for the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum. Fails WP:NLIST too: no other such a ranking, as at least one keep lvoter has admitted. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. An article with original research issues is not a reason to delete an article. It should be addressed for sure, but deleting the article is unnecessarily drastic. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I apologize, but this article doesn't even have original research issues. Every single population figure used inside the article is cited correctly (in fact the tables used have their own Citation column). To an attributable source. Just click the Citation and you'll see a published reliable official source for the data! If you're talking about area figures, capitals, and largest cities, answers to those are typically found on the country subdivisions Wikipedia page itself. If you'd like me to add the source linking each of those specifically I'd be more than happy to do it (IMO it's overkill but if it keeps the page from being deleted its worth it)
- And the other point you mentioned (which does not relate at all to the allegation of "original research" by the way), the source using different years for different subdivisions, these are just the limitations we have to work with. Not all countries release population estimates for their subdivisions as often as we'd like them to, or around the same times, and there are no international organizations which reliably make population estimates worldwide for country subdivisions, only countries. There is a methodology on which figures are used (stated in the introductory paragraph of the article), being the latest official governmental figures in every single case. In fact, this is the same methodology used used the list "List of countries and dependencies by population". We can see figures cobbled together between 2019 and 2021 (the only reason some countries don't have figures dating before 2019 in fact is that the United Nations does make reliable estimates for every country in the world, we can't use their estimates for subnational entities because they don't exist) in this list. Would you like to delete that list too?
- I contend that the current methodology that we have in place is good enough for the article. If you have better ideas for which we can get the same date for every subdivision, I'd love hearing them. Thanks, Abbasi786786 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Have either of you even read WP:OR? You are ranking "most populous administrative country subdivisions" (England???), which nobody else has (2021 apples vs. 2011 oranges). This piecing together of made-up rankings constitutes "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- This has only been ranked the way nobody else has the same way the List "List of the largest country subdivisions by area" hasn't been ranked by any organization. While the individual sources themselves on either article do not go by themselves to list every other country or country subdivisions, a larger, more clear picture is provided by putting the sources together with a consistent methodology. Is there anybody who's gonna deny that Uttar Pradesh is the most populated country subdivision in the world? Or that Presidency Division is the most populous country subdivision on the second level? We got sources to back this data up, and these are facts that belong in an encyclopedia. It feels somewhat excessive to follow these rules that we can do zero extrapolation of data to the letter (especially in cases where there are clear conclusions to be drawn like here). If you don't like the definitions that are used for country subdivisions, such as England being one of them, or 2011 data being used (this is the most recent data available) go ahead and debate that in the talk page so we can come up with a better solution. BTW this page has been around for a decade at this point. Why get rid of it now? -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- You admit it's original research ("ranked the way nobody else has"), and you're still okay with that? Also, WP:ITSBEENHEREFOREVER means nothing. Lots of examples of vandalism have been undetected for a decade. Should we ignore them too? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, everything cited, no real concerns from my point of view, at least. Issues mentioned by the nominator can be fixed without deletion. --littleb2009 (she/her) (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep You can click any of the things on the list and see what the most updated population of them is in their main articles, if anyone wants to make certain its all accurate and up to date. No valid reason given to delete this clearly notable topic. Dream Focus 23:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The list meets the notability criteria because each group is referenced. Lack of population update in some cities is not a plausible reason to delete the article. Per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Rebuttal. I could rank fictional aliens by number of appendages. That also could be verified (and more accurately than this list). Doesn't mean the ranking is notable. Show me a sociologist or geographer who employs this ordering. Comparisons of like regions, e.g. the 50 United States, make sense; mashups like this don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. It looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, but I find the nominator's WP:NLIST rationale deeply convincing. As appears to be uncontested, no reliable sources have ever discussed the populations of these subdivisions as a set. (The references only cite randomly plucked statistics from individual countries, and my searching finds nothing.) That means that, under NLIST, the article has to go, regardless of any OR issues. I hope the closer recognizes that the notability argument here has gone essentially unrebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning delete. I currently lean towards delete per WP:NLIST. Administrative divisions are a discussed topic, but this article has no sources defining the "group or set" as needed per NLIST. It even violates its own arbitrary rules by including England, as mentioned above. I did find this paper, and note it explicitly mentions the apples to oranges comparisons that these studies run into, and it specifically curates which countries it does detailed analysis on. Would be interested in seeing other sources, that might identify a group or set that could be used for this article. CMD (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Extraordinary Writ and CMD.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I am tempted to say because it is a complete f***ing mess, but I agree with Extraordinary Writ and CMD. This should not be on WP. --Bduke (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems like a contrived topic for a list. See also the (semi?-)related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political and geographical subdivisions by population. Geschichte (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Reiseführer Georgien: Unterwegs zwischen Kaukasus und Schwarzem Meer (in German). 2018. ISBN 9783897947634.