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

Hope, Arizona

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. I went ahead and did a WP:BEFORE search, and came up with GNIS mentions, and a brief mention about birds nesting outside of the community. As for the supposed community, it isn't more than a non-notable church, and a RV camp. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage of this community, between its founding in 1909 and today, in both books and newspaper articles. This was easily expanded and work will continue. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian provinces by life expectancy

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

WP:NOTDATABASE，the article looks like data tables? 日期20220626 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, Lists, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page really has a weak point that it contains little description. But that means that the description should be added. Deletion of the whole atricle with true and virified statistics for the topic, designed in convenient form, instead of adding the description is not a good strategy.

Possible solution: mark the page as a stub. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible solution: blow it up and start over again. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a person who will start it over again. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson Island (West Virginia)

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2021; found in WP:JUN25 cleanup. I can find no substantial coverage of this island; all of what I'm turning up is for other islands of similar names, particularly Robertson Island in Antarctica. This is a fairly small bar island with no exceptional characteristics that I can find. I've considered the possibility of a merge to Tygart Valley River but I don't see how giving this coverage over other islands would be due weight for the river's article. There is List of islands of West Virginia which has unclear inclusion criteria but appears to only be listing notable islands so I do not believe that a merger to there would be due weight either. WP:NATFEAT suggests this should be discussed at Tygart Valley River but I have strong concerns that this would be undue detail there, especially without a more general discussion of islands in the river. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, West Virginia, and Islands. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source, no article...and there is nothing here to merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tygart Valley River. The island is shown and labeled on United States Geological Survey maps from 1958 onward (Fairmont West quadrangle), with its present shape, and two structures are visible in 1958, 1976, and 1997 (I cannot tell if they are on the 2016 photographic map, which is blurry; they are not shown on the map finder tool, which is meant to be current). This is at least confirmation of a permanent or semi-permanent geographic feature with a recognized name, if not necessarily a populated place. I was hoping to see some mention of it in Hardesty's, but FamilySearch has Marion County online (the 1976 reprint, combined with other counties), and I did not see it mentioned under general county information, Union or Grant districts, or anyone named Robertson in the biographical listings (it's possible that it's mentioned under the name of someone else connected with it). However, I think that the fact that it's mapped and seems to be a permanent feature with a recognized name makes it sufficiently documented to be mentioned in an article about the river. There are other islands also visible and labeled on these maps, which should probably be included if they are not already. P Aculeius (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greenstreet, Missouri

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

Fails WP:NPLACE, as a populated place without legal recognition. This appears to be no more than a road, with some homes on it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to warn the editor (who's now using the account Sunhighway27) on the potential consequences that would happen if the draft is moved without enough SIGCOV sourcing shown in the article. They instead think like adding more sources that are actually not SIGCOV would be allow the subject to be in the mainspace. I did a WP:BEFORE search and I could not find any SIGCOV sources, nor in the draft (although offline sources with SIGCOV is always helpful). On the basis of that, Delete but I am not opposed to moving the page to the userspace/draftspace for development. It appears that my efforts to guide them to the right path failed. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
did I fail you @ToadetteEdit Sunny's Highway 27 20:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that, you haven't quite listened to my advice properly. I was trying to help you into finding good sources; instead you added the bad sources. I said that you should write about another topic, but you did not give up. And seeing that you move warred within the last 24 hours is not a good look to be honest. I think it is better to find another topic to write, a topic that is notable based on available sources. But I think that this topic will never survive on Wikipedia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by move warred Sunny's Highway 27 12:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cf WP:Edit war but with using the move functionality. While you did not warred, you moved the page to draftspace twice, as can be seen in the page history. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I was trying to save it Sunny's Highway 27 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wow, that sounded narcissistic Sunny's Highway 27 19:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then how did a lot of the articles on obscure place with the same amount or less and not much better sources in the U.S and even Franklin County for gosh sake survive Sunny's Highway 27 12:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got an answer to this already, here. Take a moment to read that information again, and follow the links! --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did and that's about Fourmile Corner, you should read too! Sunny's Highway 27 19:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how did a lot of the articles on obscure place with the same amount or less and not much better sources [...] survive. The post I linked to gives you the answer. It doesn't matter that that particular discussion thread is about a different non-notable place. Read it again, and follow the links provided, and you will have the answer to your question here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't try to add anything, I was trying to add more sources, My process "scoop up" decent sources, filter, add the good ones Sunny's Highway 27 12:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I forgot to read SIVGOV Sunny's Highway 27 19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has 4 Roads, Greenstreet RD, Oak Terrace, Cedar DR, Maple PL Sunny's Highway 27 19:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in USGS and Code Names Sunny's Highway 27 20:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page 39 in code names Sunny's Highway 27 20:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I know that I am the Creator of the article, but when I add more sources, I look through after, which I have now. I say either keep the Article or make it a draft in the mainspace, I know that you might not trust me, but just listen to me. Sunny's Highway 27 20:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "a draft in the mainspace"? A draft is, by definition, not in the mainspace. --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind I meant I article in the mainspace Sunny's Highway 27 11:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability and no indication that there are sources that would make it meet WP:NPLACE. Draftifying would serve no purpose if we don't think it could become a viable article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
draftifing would help develop the article/draft Sunny's Highway 27 11:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it is a topic that could become an article. My point is that this topic couldn't, because several very experienced editors have been unable to find any sources. No reliable, independent, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage = no article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wait for coverage and use it than but in the meanwhile either have a template for more citations or redraft it for improve. Also note, I haven't see any of you guys even try to fix it. Another note, the medium sources are temporary and the ones first found but if you keep looking you might find a few good ones. Sunny's Highway 27 12:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunhighway27: I know you're new here. Even very experienced editors are still learning. There are lots of well-established principles that we don't expect you to know from day one. For instance, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, and WP:NPOSSIBLE. Before I nominated this article for discussion, I did search for further sources and didn't find any, so I don't think the issue can be fixed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete My guess would be that this was created as a group of vacation cabins or the like, but without sourcing we cannot be sure. As a rule we have not held such places notable unless there was some degree of historical narrative or other information to tell about them. GNIS is not a reliable source for the character of a place due to ambiguities and outright mistakes on the maps, and to issues in their interpretation. My searching didn't disclose anything, but I'm not the best person at this. But I'm also rather down on the "there might be sources" thing. My experience is that if there are going to be sources, the usual participants in these discussions are going to find something fairly quickly. Mangoe (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is not information suggesting it is and vacation cabins but some properties close might be old ones. If was a mistake why is it on multiple maps. EX. Wikipedia's map, Open Street Map, ACME mapper, Bing maps, Geonames, MapQuest, etc. This wouldn't be just a obscure vacation spot, it an community. Sunny's Highway 27 12:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's too far to be a neiborhood, GNIS probaly didn't make a mistake Sunny's Highway 27 12:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A neiborhood of Beuafort or Lesie Sunny's Highway 27 19:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why are we doing this Sunny's Highway 27 20:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: why are we doing this[?] Can you please clarify your question? When articles do not meet the expectations needed for inclusion, mostly for notability concerns, but also e.g. WP:What Wikipedia is not violations, it often gets deletion, often using one of the available Wikipedia:Deletion processes. In this (Articles for deletion), a discussion is held for 168 hours from the start of the nomination (here, this started at 12:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC), and will close at 12:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC) at the earliest, but with exceptions) so as to determine whether this article should be deleted or not, or whether other alternatives e.g. redirection should be tried other than deletion. Here, we are doing this AfD because the subject is shown to not be notable, per the agreement so far from independent voices. There is no way for you to close this for multiple reasons. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was resubmitted so talk could check my new sources, I didn't say that it was ready Sunny's Highway 27 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that Curb Safe Charmer is watching this page so there is no need to notify them via their talk page. You should not resubmit if you are sure that it is not ready. This would rather waste time fod other reviewers. ToadetteEdit (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sambalut

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

Procedural nomination. Turtlecrown came onto my talk page demanding to know why I tagged this stub as "sources exist". After answering by finding two good, albeit passing, reliable sources, I also explained my process why I won't work on sourcing locations anymore, but haven't gotten a reply yet. I'm leaving it up to the community to decide what to do with this stub that has been unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years, without any subsequent content or similar improvements, and also if you want me to continue to source locations or not, because I'm getting a lot of negative feedback and to be blunt I'm tired of wasting my time. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see plenty of books and academic sources that at least mention its founding. I don't know if there's any more in-depth discussion in the literature of the location, but it seems like it meets geographic historical location requirements. Silver seren^C 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - will vote later. I'm looking at Google Scholar and saw 6 results of which 4 are false positives (discussing Hinduism from an Indonesian context, the Dayak people of Indonesia, or simply a typo). From the other two sources, the first source says: the towns founded by the Khazars, after conquering Transcaucasia, received the names of Samiran, Samsakly, Sambalut, Samakha, Samkalako, and others. and . In the Khazar language, as in many other Turkish dialects, the word sam means "top," "high," or "main,' and was used as a name for many towns. The second source directly references the first source, so there is no additional information. This is very little information. I will have to further review Google Books and other areas. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing on Google News, nothing on TWL, nothing on Newspapers.com. Looking at Google Books there are several more false positives regarding the Dayaks of Borneo, Indonesia; another false positive along the Nile river in Africa; there is a map that Google says supposedly mentions Sambalut along with a whole host of other places but I can't decipher the map (you are welcome to try), there's a third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth (including duplicates) sources that discuss Sambalut but most probably they say nothing more than the first source above (you see they also mention Samakha, Samiran etc). There are several more inaccessible sources that are probably false positives. There's also a German source but I can't read German, perhaps I should ask a German editor, but maybe it's a false positive also that the actual word may be "Sambalu". starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this point, if the German source is not substantive, we should probably delete this article. We can simply mention Sambalut in the Khazars article. I don't think it should be a redirect due to the usage related to Dayak people and other Indonesian content. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see only the first page of the source, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - One thing we might want to try and find out first is how Sambalut is spelled in Turkish or Arabic and see if sources show up when those names are searched. Since it's not like we would expect much of the academic coverage to be in English. Silverseren^C 04:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - That German book from 1576 mentions Sambalut in a chapter which describes (or purports to describe) Tartary. Paraphrasing: There is the province of Tangut (!) – which provides the world supply of rhubarb – and the land of Cataio (Cathay) with the city of Sambalut, 20 Italian miles in circumference according to Niccolò de' Conti, or 32 miles according to Marco Polo. The city is of a rectangular layout with castles at each corner. Make of that what you will . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @Michael Bednarek: - greatly appreciate your translation. I am now more confident that the German source is a false positive as well. de' Conti and Polo were born after the end of the Khazars. It is highly unlikely that Sambalut would ever have been considered to be in China. Observing the German source closely, line eight of that paragraph, and the fourth last line of that paragraph, clearly write "Sambalu" and not "Sambalut". starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sure, you can try that, Silver seren. I used Google Translate, no change of name when in Turkish, name changed to سامبالوت in Arabic, and nothing found for سامبالوت in Google Scholar/Books/News/Search. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        The Turkish and Arabic Wikipedia articles for the Khazars are short. I don't think Sambalut is mentioned there. The Khazar English Wikipedia article says no indigenous records in the Khazar language survived. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I found a better version of the map I mentioned above. It shows Europe upside down though. Okay so from staring at the map, there's a drawing of a man at the bottom left. Above his head and to the right, is a black dot with the black name "Samarchat". Maybe that's Sambalut. Either way, not enough information to go on. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on what I've found above. Not enough information to pass WP:GNG and this is a word used in other languages or referring to other places. I'll just include what I found in the Khazars article (done!). Ping me if there's anything that came up in other language sources and I will reconsider my vote. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nutwood, Indiana

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

I can find nothing to show that this was anything more than a rail stop. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the sources cited calls it "a station rather than a town". I couldn't find any sources stating this place ever supported a population. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamwold Heights, Indiana

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

I could find out nothing sbout this area but from maps and aerials it is obviously an old suburban neighborhood of South Bend; I find nothing saying it is or was ever a town in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty sure this neighborhood is WP:MADEUP. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tambon in Thailand - N (Part 2)

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

If I understand correctly, these "Part 2" and "Part 3" articles are redundant with the content of List of tambon in Thailand (N–O). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - isn't it against Wikipedia to have "Part 2 articles"? Either way, it's unencyclopedic to have them. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the person who created these forks never performed a proper split, resulting in orphaned duplicates. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I notice the creator's user talk page has a section about unnecessary undiscussed article splits, and the user has not edited in about 8 years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyntine Cove

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

Very short stub with no citations. There was very little to go on to look for more information. I looked at some old admiralty maps and the 1911 Census of Newfoundland^[1] and could find absolutely no trace of this place. Finally I looked at the List of ghost towns in Newfoundland and Labrador. I did find a source that mentions a "Ballantyne Cove"^[2] but this is still very little to go on. Unfortunately after clicking on a few of the placenames on that list I found that most of them (or at least the ones I clicked on) were equally short stubs with either no references or 1 reference similar to what I found for Ballyntine Cove so on top of comments on the page I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed for the rest of the places on that list. Giuliotf (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stub nightmare may have, in my opinion, signaled there wasn't really a town here to begin with. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Elliott, Indiana

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

This looks entirely like a neighborhood of Schererville which somehow managed to escape being incorporated in the town. The Town limits are wildly irregular, and I have to suspect it was added to in several steps, but for whatever reason this section, which is surrounded everywhere except to the north by the town, is unincorporated. What I can't find, though, is any evidence that it ever had a town-ish existence of its own; indeed, other that real estate clickbait, I'm having a hard time finding evidence of it at all. It only shows up on the topos as a label in the 1950s, and then presumably got back-added from GNIS; but I can't find anything that says anything about it. I get a lot of false hits from chance juxtapositions but really the clickbait has it right: it's a neighborhood of the town which happens not to lie within its borders. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a town or neighborhood officially in the US Census. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some sourcing. The community was only started in 1940, so it would not be on prior topos. An incorporation drive failed in 1956, so it clearly had its own identity by then. It is distinct enough that redirecting to St. John Township, Lake County, Indiana would be a worse solution.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Bangladesh

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is largely dependent on original research and synthesis, not having sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I consider it as non-notable under WP:GNG. The theory "Greater Bangladesh" had been popular just among a small group of people, specifically the right-wing Indian politicians. Recently, the topic became trending after the fall of Sheikh Hasina, when a student advisor posted a status on FB relating to Greater Bangladesh, which he later deleted. However, it was just an individual opinion or viewpoint, not substantially notable. But, as you know, some unreliable Godi media often spread propaganda and rumors, as it happened in case of Greater Bangladesh. Several media reports especially this report of Economic Times has been proved to be fake after a fact check by Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha. I don't think that in reality such a conspiracy exists. There seems to be no military operation, militant organization or so called "Islamist group" that is circulating any activities or military training in Bangladesh in order to fulfill the agenda of Greater Bangladesh. I consider it to fall under WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:ADVOCACY and the cited news reports as WP:NOTNEWS. I am aware that historically there had been something (perhaps a proposal by Hussain Shahid Suhrawardy) like Undivided Bengal before the Partition of India. However, I think a similar article United Bengal can cover all those, eventually raising questions on the significance of Greater BD article. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Geography, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am well aware that the article had undergone two previous nominations. But the fact is that- first one had no consensus, and the second one resulted into "keep" largely due to the lack of detailed information and logic in deletion rationale by nominator. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmitigated irredentism. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Merge only necessary content without Godi media sources to United Bengal. Orientls (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Most media coverage is about Turkey based group showing Greater Bangladesh map. Fruit Orchard (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nominator's reasoning. Ixudi (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nom's statement sums it up. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geocivilization

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

This is essentially WP:OR based on an obscure research article with lots of WP:COI added in. It is tied to the article Ahmed Sarirete that was created by the same user presumably as WP:PROMO and which is also currently under consideration for deletion. Essentially the concept seems to be introduced in this obscure academic article https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol66/iss66/9/ which has been cited a total of 7 times in the last 13 years and does not have seemed to have gained any traction. While not totally made up, most of it is WP:OR or WP:FRINGE with some references to existing topics but the term does not seem to be widely accepted in academia as a search in JSTOR and Google Scholar shows. --hroest 17:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. hroest 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In marking this article as patrolled, I left a talk page message noting that "geocivilization is frequently used in political science research to discuss how geography shapes politics and vice versa, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for retention." Here are some examples of its use:

Sebastian-Gabriel Popescu (2019-04-25). "And Yet the Black Sea Can Be an Essential Geostrategic Pivot in the Solution of Euro-Asiatic Endogenous Conflictuality". Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies Conference Proceedings. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.2651185.
Ciderova, Denisa; Repasova, Vladimira (September 2019). "Geo-Heterogeneity in the Context of the EU". European Scientific Journal. 9.
Mohanty, Manoranjan (2018). "Sectional President's Address: Alternative Historiography: Tan Chung's Geo-Civilisational Paradigm". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 79: 644–653. ISSN 2249-1937.
"Zan Tao: Historical Evolution of Türkiye and Eurasian Geopolitics". Institute of International and Strategic Studies. Peking University. 19 October 2022. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
Shih, Chih-yu (2013). "Global Asian: China as Position between Host and Home". Sinicizing International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 153–173. doi:10.1057/9781137289452_10. ISBN 978-1-349-45016-9.

While the term is definitely niche, I think it is sufficiently notable given its use across this many contexts and regions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete I don't have the time or the background to sort through all this but I note that (a) the jargon level is extremely high in this to the point of tempting a diagnosis of deliberate obfuscation, (b) few of the works noted above appear to use it as a term, and (c) it really ought to be possible to say "no, environmental factors aren't entirely determining" without having to make a school of it or for that matter to run on so. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kreitzburg, Indiana

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

Searching isn't showing much beyond the revelation that "Kreitzburgh" id s surname, and the aerials show the cluster of buildings at the site to be a farm. Eventually a development gets laid down along the road north and the whole thing gets surrounded by suburbia, but I cannot find evidence of this as a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest businesses I can find on Google Maps all list their addresses in "Dyer, IN". Hiawog (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have improved.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Milowent. This was fairly easily expanded, with the knowledge of the alternate names of this community (Kreuzburg and Kreitsburg). While today it is a suburb of Dyer, it lies outside that city, so I wouldn't recommend redirecting. And this is a community which was noted from the 1880s to the 1990s. As notability is not temporary, this article should be kept. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuquanying

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

Non-notable intersection. In attempting to source this article, I was unable to find any valid sources about this particular intersection, much less anything that would contribute to notability. Garsh (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems odd to me that the article is focused on an intersection. Isn't Yuquanying a major road, not just an intersection? (There seem to be many articles about the road and building complexes on the road via Google News.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yuquanying Subdistrict. The Chinese name here is 玉泉营, which seems to refer to a variety of topics in that area, but I think all can be covered at the main subdistrict article. That article could be expanded with this source, which covers the history of the area in depth, though its reliability could be debated [1]. Toadspike [Talk] 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Sources have been added, focus has been expanded to mention Yuquanying's 800 years of history as one of the 18 floricultural villages of the Fengtai district of Beijing before becoming the site of a major highway intersection and overpass. (OK I'm still in the process of untangling how best to cite and/or edit that section, which could still take several days as I try to work on other things.) Sincerely appreciate the pointer to the administrative subdistrict page provided by Toadspike (not to mention their spirit of investigation which is what makes these geography AfD puzzles interesting), but the modern administrative subdistrict article can remain separate from the Yuquanying article about the history of the village since the Jin dynasty. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this – I considered expanding this article, but decided that Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article about a populated place, is more suitable for this information. I don't mean to be rude, but you have effectively hijacked this article and changed its topic to one that we already cover elsewhere. Toadspike [Talk] 09:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 800-year history of the village of Yuquanying, where there is now also a highway overpass, is not covered at all in the current article about Yuquanying Subdistrict, which focuses on an administrative region established in 2021. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can only have one topic claiming notablity per GEOLAND on this, and here it should be the legally-recognized subdistrict. Of the three sources you link, the first is about the subdistrict, the second lists Yuquanying among other subdistricts like Majiapu Subdistrict and some places that don't seem to have legal recognition, and the third is a mathematical analysis of traffic at the intersection that doesn't actually tell us anything about the intersection. I am not convinced this shows the need for a split from the main subdistrict article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can still keep looking for more sources; those were just indicative and as I said, it's still a work in progress. The first source actually leads with the modern Yuquanying subdistrict but the third paragraph is about the historical village of Yuquanying and its 800-year history as a flower town. The second source is interesting because it references the historical (centuries-old) concept of the 18 villages of Fengtai district, which is discussed elsewhere in books and suggests a fruitful line of research, and also provides more context about the floricultural history of the region. (Actually not sure what to do with "Beijing Yuquanying highway" in the third source; not even sure if it's actually about the actual intersection or overpass. Is it? Very unclear from looking at the article.) Anyway Wikipedia is full of multiple articles about the same geographic location. We could easily keep splitting this article into sub-topics and at minimum, Yuquanying would have to be retained as a disambiguation page. (And yes, you are correct: it is more polite to assume good faith per WP:AGF.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Toadspike, I don't see a convincing argument for keeping both Yuquanying Subdistrict and Yuquanying, the history part of this article, which I guess was added post-nom, can be put in the subdistrict article and this can redirect there. Moritoriko (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even clear that the administrative region is geographically in the same place as the old village! In fact, it subsumes several old neighbouring villages, possibly. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese geography and naming is a bit outside my wheelhouse, but would you say it is likely that the name of the subdistrict was chosen because of the old village? Doing further research on the "18 villages of Fengtai" is not showing me much of anything either, perhaps that information should be put in that article instead. Moritoriko (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerman, Mazandaran

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

Fails WP:NGEO, non-notable village in Iran. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is currently being addressed. I'm trying to collect as much information possible to make sure it can considered notable.PAper GOL (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The relevant criteria here are explained in WP:GEOLAND: 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. It is a little concerning that a couple of the reference links appear to be broken but if it is in fact a populated, legally recognized place, the article will likely pass. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illinoi, Illinois and Indiana

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

An abject searching failure but from the topos and aerials it was obviously a rail shipping point and nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Illinois, and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a significant railroad facility can and often does have its own article (and I've written several), there's no evidence to support this being a rail facility of significance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article fails to meet the notability guidelines, and no sources show up on the search engine. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2025 (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.

Naukatola Raxaul

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage; no reason found to justify its inclusion.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Town (Colchester ward)

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

I do not believe that it has ever been the intention of Wikipedia to raise to article levels minor electoral areas in local government as such. Obviously a ward may encompass an area such as a village that is relevant in and of itself, but in this case, it is simply a collation of electoral results, which is by no means significant coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with clear precedent. There are thousands of electoral constituency articles on Wikipedia of all types and AFDs have routinely return Keep results. This article is well written and sourced. MRSC (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For national election constituencies, that is true. But this is only for electing local government. Such wards do not see news articles speculating about who might win, or possible candidates. Those elected are unlikely to ever generate GNG coverage such as would lead to them getting an article. It is a very different scale than a constituency for national government.

If this is to be retained, does that mean that we ought to have a goal of creating articles for all 8,694 such wards in th UK? Not to mention equivalents worldwide. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to City of Colchester. Local city ward lacks notability and fails GNG. There is no precedent or basis for any suggestion that constituencies are automatically notable, particularly at the local level with only a few thousand voters. Most of the other thousands of articles are at the national or regional level and are substantially larger entities (and many of them should also be deleted or merged). The suggestion that the article is well-sourced is simply laughable, the only sources are simple election results data for the council, nothing remotely resembling significant coverage. We are not a database for every minor election result without context. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Colchester; it's just a local ward. No inherent notability and no SIGCOV. The electoral records can be linked form the main page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be merged? Are you proposing that the article for the city should have every result of every ward election since the area became a local authority? Or that this one ward somehow gets exceptional treatment? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose (about five lines), and link the tables of results. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but why would the City of Colchester article be improved by having some trivial data about a former ward, while a couple of dozen other former and current wards do not have the same details given? Or why the results of this one (former) ward should be preserved and reported while those of the others are not? Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be crying into my beer if this article is deleted, but WP:ATD states that "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and WP:ATD-M that "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles". So my reply is based on the deletion policy.

Speaking of which: per below, instructions for multiple-article AfDs are at WP:BUNDLE. Hope this helps. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By no means intended as an attack on you, but I think it is a huge flaw of the deletion system that an instruction gets sent to a talk page telling editors there that material from another article is to be incorporated into it, with no consideration of whether it is appropriate or proportionate, often when there has been no awareness on the part of the editors committed to the target page that such a thing is under discussion. It comes across (again, by no means intending this as personal to you) as an extraordinary systemic arrogance that one part of Wikipedia tells another what it must do with no consultation at all.

But that is a bigger issue than the article at hand.

Thanks to the signposting to WP:Bundle, but that doesn't seem to deal with later additions to an AfD, so I'll see what happens here, then propose it if there is (what seems to me) a suitable outcome here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the method is for turning a simple AfD into a multiple article AfD, but anything that can be said about this article seems likely equally true of Castle (Colchester ward). And if both of those are deleted, I would suggest that Template:Electoral wards in the City of Colchester, being then is void, should equally be removed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurley Corner, Indiana

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

A crossroads about which I can find essentially nothing: GHits are all gazetteers or clickbait, and I get only two pages of GBook hits, none of which tell me anything new. A plain notability fail. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NGEO says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" and that in the USA "Census Designated Places usually represent notable places". I'm not sure how to check if Gurley Corner is a Census Designated Place, but I bet somebody knows how? Lijil (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were, it would have been described as such in the article, because CDP's in the US are, as you said, presumed notable (I don't agree with this, but I'm one person). As for the article, nothing to say or find in searching. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep per NGEO. I don't see any other sources. Though one must wonder what makes this corner so gurley. ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have been a town at some point, Switzerland County Interim Report (p. 40) talks about Gurley Corner around early 1800s being a town. "Early towns that flourished in Posey Township included Gurley Corner , Patriot , Quercus Grove , and Searcy Crossroads . Though small , these towns served as marketplaces and shipping points for area farmers via the Ohio River." --Soman (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2025 (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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addams (crater)

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

Seems to fail WP:NATFEAT. There's not much information discussing it outside of its coordinates and various statistics such as depth and size. I don't believe it simply being on Venus makes it any more special or notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Geography. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of craters on Venus, and do the same with the rest of the stubs in Category:Impact craters on Venus. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of craters on Venus with the rest of the category, as the list contains pretty much all the sourced content on each. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm finding mentions in papers due to the crater's extended ejecta blanket, including one dedicated article.[2] Praemonitus (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow up, this crater is also discussed in several books on the topic of Venus.[3][4][5] It appears to be fairly iconic for that reason. Praemonitus (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Praemonitus. Ryan shell (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Praemonitus. I don't think redirecting to a mere list would do the subject justice. In fact, it should be kept based on WP:NATFEAT.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See the references already in the article which appear to add up to multiple in-depth sources, as well as the claim in the article that this is the largest outflow deposit for any Venusian crater. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 June 2025 (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.

West Grove, Indiana

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

Another visit to the 1876 state atlas, and again, you know there's nothing there, except that in this case the topos show the "West Grove Cemetery". And what I'm finding in searching is that hits are mostly for a Quaker meeting which was apparently here. But I'm not getting anything else, so this seems to have been an isolated meeting house. Mangoe (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several documents state there was a Quaker Friends Monthly Meeting building and cemetery here, as well as a school (p. 238). This book (p.188) mentions a person living in West Grove. --Magnolia677 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded. My only question is whether we should say it "is" or "was" an unincorporated rural community. I cannot say for sure whether the place name still gets used with only the cemetery left to carry on the community name.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These additions improved the article, but none of them support that anyone ever lived here, which is the criteria for notability. I only found one source (above). If a source could be found stating a population number that would be great. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rural community centered around the church and school; people clearly lived there from the sources I added, and there are other references to people being born there, or dying there, etc. But what "there" meant is a rural community, thus it appeared on numerous maps until the early 20th century. I'm not surprised its not on maps like this 1936 map[6], by then its identity as being a community separate from the rural environs of Centerville was dissipating. Added refs about the church being torn down in 1952, haven't figured out yet when the school closed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Center Township, Wayne County, Indiana. There is enough to keep a redirect, IMHO, but not enough to justify a separate article. (Sorry for adding another option to consider, but I feel that a line or two in the township article is really the best option for places like this.) Eluchil404 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the WP:HEY additions by Milowent. This is a much improved article and at least some of the references mention the community. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions

^ "Census of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1911". Government of Canada. Retrieved June 7, 2025.
^ "Year book and almanac of Newfoundland". Newfoundland Almanac. St. John's (N.L.): David R. Thistle, King's Printer: 85. 1931.

[1] "Census of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1911". Government of Canada. Retrieved June 7, 2025.

[2] "Year book and almanac of Newfoundland". Newfoundland Almanac. St. John's (N.L.): David R. Thistle, King's Printer: 85. 1931.

[1]

[2]