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

Bolivar, Indiana

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

A rail junction, definitely, but I got nowhere on finding anything out about this as a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Corner, Wabash County, Indiana

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

Severe case of label drift here, as older topos place the label next to the College Corner Brethren Church, whose website has this to say: "The congregation received its name because a man by the name of Davis, who lived on that same corner, was the first man to send a son off to college. The church quickly became known as ‘the church at the corner by the boy who went off to college’." So it appears the name refers to the church, which is really the only thing there. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newton, Wabash County, Indiana

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

A defunct rail junction where the only building was, as far as I can determine, the tower building that controlled it. Now one of the lines is gone and there is nothing there but trees. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Stations, and Indiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing in historic aerials and topos. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nekkonda

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

Article is little more than a basic definition of the term. No history or anything. Gommeh 🎮 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Gommeh 🎮 17:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pekalongan flood and landslide

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:LASTING: "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding ..." Effects here included a 14-day disaster emergency, eleven districts that were affected, buildings that were destroyed, bridges that were swept away, 25 deaths, 13 injured, 2 or 3 people who disappeared (often also dead). gidonb (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the subject of sustained significant secondary coverage. Articles like this should not be created unless the event is written about retrospectively. Wikipedia is not a repository of miscellaneous news stories. Falls far below the standard set at WP:LASTING. Note that quantities associated with a subject are not factored into AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, quantities associated with a subject are not factored into AfD. Yet, that is stating the irrelevant. The relevant information is that, like the above, WP:EFFECTs are factored into AfDs so your argument was already refuted before it was written! gidonb (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society

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

Upon review, no reliable sources could be found that are independent of the source and contain relevant factual information. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Nixleovel (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, Geography, and Ireland. Nixleovel (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. Plus, the society itself doesn't even have an article. GoldRomean (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Park, Berks County, Pennsylvania

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

Page was originally created in 2010 and has had only minor changes since then. It's never contained any references as far I can tell (NB: I'm still a newbie at reading the changelogs, so I could've missed one). It's been marked as "unreferenced" since 2019 without any references getting added. There's some decent text in the article, but I couldn't find any sources for the information, and the page is a near-orphan, only linked to by one other article (well, four total, but three are a list of places, a talk page, and a user page). I'd be happy for it to stick around if anyone can verify the info, but the user who generated the main text of the page doesn't exist anymore, so I don't know who'd be able to supply references. Local Internet User (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhlenberg Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Djflem (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Hill, Maine

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

Found during WP:JUN25; taking to AFD rather than PROD as I am not familiar with the standard geographic place sources for Maine. Unsourced since creation in 2008 and tagged as such since 2017. There is search noise from a hiking trail in a nature park in Greenwood, Maine and from the Ring Hill Airport but as best as I can tell the Ring Hill in Litchfield was originally a stock farm on a literal hill, which has since given its name to a small housing development; this doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND unless I'm really missing something. Hog Farm _Talk 20:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maine. Hog Farm _Talk 20:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Older topo maps show only the geographic feature of Ring Hill on the east side of Pleasant Pond, in Sagadahoc County, and villages (at least houses too dense for individual mapping) at Litchfield Plains and Litchfield Corners. It's mentioned in the minutes of the Litchfield town meeting for April 27, 2020 "Locations below Ring Hill on the Plains and Thorofare Roads and the south east corner on Dead River Road have [cellphone service] issues" but that doesn't indicate to me that it's a populated place per se. The cemetery marked in the vicinity on current topos appears to be the Robinson Cemetery, associated with a family rather than a church. Dig as I will, I don't find evidence that this was a meaningful populated place. Choess (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable stock farm. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor, Indiana

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

Aerials show a grain elevator by the tracks, and there are the ruins of what appears to have been a relatively late station building, but until some houses and a power substation were built in the area there's nothing much else. The juxtaposition with post office comes from our old unreliable friend the 1876 state atlas, whcih I would question. I don't see evidence this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Nayyn (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octagon, Indiana

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

As far as I can tell, this was nothing more than a long-lived 4th class post office. I find no evidence for a town here; several people in a vounty history are listed as "from" here, but they are all described as farmers. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added some material on the history of this crossroad, from local newspapers. It's not much, but the place was documented as having businesses, residences, and a Masonic Lodge at one time. With three new sources (all from the same newspaper, but spanning 50 years) I think this just squeaks through WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sialkot Dagger

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

I am unable to find reliable sources for this term. It is possible that this area is referred to by a different term for which there are sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Pakistan, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese wiki does seem to show that it is called the Akhnoor Dagger or Chicken's Neck. No comment on notability at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 07:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Salient (geography) is the generic term for this kind of feature. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Akhnoor Dagger" or return the article to "Chicken's Neck (Pakistan)", its title until an undiscussed move yesterday. While the name "Sialkot Dagger" is unreferenced, the place itself is notable as Akhnoor Dagger or Chicken's Neck. I have added some references to the article. — AjaxSmack 15:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding these references. I hadn't given any preference in my nomination statement, but I'm now suggesting that Move to "Akhnoor Dagger" seems to be the best option. I would argue that the term "Sialkot Dagger" doesn't have any reliable references for it and should be deleted once it becomes a redirect, but that might be an argument to be made at RFD later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Crane, Indiana

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

A grain loading station on an now-abandoned Big Four line; the old elevator is indeed still there along with a concrete silo and the ruins of the old station buildings, but going back there's never anything other than these structures and the Quonset huts just to the south, and the couple of surrounding farms. GHits get gazetteers and rail directories and a book confirming that this was a station, but nothing descriptive of this as a town or for that matter anything else. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the usual WP mirrors, the only source I can find is a soil survey report; hardly enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. But I did find a "website" that said "If you are interested in getting a good time in the gay village of your location you can find a gay North Crane (Tippecanoe County, Indiana), do not miss the finest clubs." Which is why all these no-effort, no-information stubs should be deleted; they are polluting the internet with dreck that bots and AI pick up, vomiting out nonverifiable, nonexistent, valueless garbage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowbrook, Indiana

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

An older suburban development of Lafayette; not notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, just a normal suburban development. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham, Tippecanoe County, Indiana

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

Another back-entry into GNIS from our old friend the 1876 historical atlas of the state, the spot is at the moment completely forested and shows nothing on any topo. GHits were all irrelevant juxtapositions, even those in Lippicott's. No idea what this might have been but it's unverifiable. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on, this one doesn't even appear on USGS topo maps! Unverifiable garbage, clearly made by someone who didn't know or care what they were saying. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mostly lay this one on the GNIS compilers, though our writer really should have at least looked at the map before creating this. But the general rule across all states thus far has been that places entered into GNIS from sources other than topos have not been otherwise verifiable. And this particular map has proven particularly bad. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to turn up some newspaper hits from March 1837 where someone was advertising for sale of land plots at that time; there was a following notice from June 1837 that the sale of land plots had been postponed. This does not appear to have ever developed into an actual community. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwich, Indiana

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

First off, the correct name is "Eastwitch". Second, it is bltantly a suburban development,originally on the edge of Lafayette, which has since been absorbed by the city. There's no sign it was ever a town unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proof of previous town before suburban development. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crumb Corner, Indiana

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

Here is an example of how WP:GEOLAND puts us in a bind. Ultimately, the only source here is the topos, with some ratification from aerial photography. And what they show is that back seventy years or so, there was a cluster of buildings at an intersection, with the label "Crumb Corner". Urbanization crept up to it and then around it, but the original spot was completely erased in favor of a limited access interchange, and the label disappeared. Then, as typical in the 2013 maps, it was apparently back-added from GNIS. That's what the maps show, but I cannot verify this any other way. All of the even vaguely relevant GHits are gazetteers. clickbait, or routine "list all the placenames" stuff. I can find nothing that says anything about this specific spot that didn't come off those maps. Is this spot still called "Crumb Corner"? Are people even aware of this spot if they don't look at some map?I can't tell. I'm having a great deal of trouble justifying an article on a place where the only way we can tell the potential truth about a place— that is was wiped out by highway construction— is through the interpretation of maps and aerials. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A freeway interchange is not a community...the "is" in the first sentence of the article is a lie. If someone were to rewrite the article about a historical place by this name, then that's fine, but then we'd need more information than we could get from old maps. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:OR, and a perfect example of how transcribing databases into articles leads to misinformation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Grove, Indiana

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

I'm having some trouble with this one. It was the location of a nasty 1947 head-on train collision when on train overran the siding here, and indeed everything substantial I can find out about it is rail-related. There was a grain elevator here, supplemented by a pair of concrete silos which are still there, and on the north side of the road there was a coop with its bins, but the whole site has an air of rail spot no longer related to the rails. This page discussing it as a Monon station claims the latter was established in 1915, which is almost certainly wrong, based on the post office date; I have to think the earlier station was torn down. At any rate I'm having no luck finding evidence of this as a town as opposed to a rail loading point. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned, only a railpoint. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 07:17, 20 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]

Question - we have list articles for a reason. Does this article meet WP:NLIST? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a preamble to the article. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 18:37, 23 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider ATD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:51, 20 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]
This is exactly the kind of assumption that leads to misinformation on Wikipedia, particularly with regard to geographical history. Every claim made on Wikipedia should be verifiable per WP:V. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am asking you if this is true, and doing it in the AfD instead of putting it in the article. I'm not going to put unverified information out there >( Moritoriko (talk) 05:00, 16 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]

Comment. At minimum, this discussion could be closed as no consensus and if other editors seriously want to pursue a merge discussion, they can start one, though I remain unconvinced from the arguments made above that the now significantly expanded and referenced Yuquanying (covering the 800-year history of Yuquanying village and the surrounding area through the early 21st century) should be merged into the Yuquanying Subdistrict, an article focused on the governance and boundaries of a modern administrative region that was created in 2021. Also, WP:HEY. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the sources added since my last comment here:
- [2] mentions Yuquanying market once, among a list of others. Not SIGCOV.
- [3] mentions that a segment of the Beijing–Kaifeng highway starts at the Yuquanying interchange. Not sigcov.
- [4] is about the local government of Yuquanying Subdistrict, which already has its own article.
- [5] Two photos of Yuquanying, with captions that tell us nothing about the place. Not sigcov.
- [6] mentions Yuquanying Flower Market among a list of others, alongside its opening hours. This is not sigcov; often such coverage promoting businesses/events is also not considered independent.
- [7] is a passing mention, not sigcov, though it does provide the interesting factoid that the Yuquanying Flower Market was "[Beijing's] largest potted flower wholesale market" at the time (in 2003).
- [8] is a government report on a fire at a business (玉泉营环岛家具城, 'Yuquanying Roundabout Furniture City'), not really about the town.
The article Yuquanying Subdistrict doesn't have to meet the GNG because it meets NPLACE, but we can't make the same carveout twice for the same place. I remain unconvinced that we need two separate articles and strongly stand by my original position that these articles should be merged. Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "We can't make the same carveout twice for the same place" is not policy – it actually demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the broader landscape of Geography and History articles across Wikipedia. Wikipedia is vast though, and there is no deadline, so I would recommend joining up with more WikiProjects where you might get exposed to a larger volume of articles. (I find my own perspective changes all the time, the more I read and the more I edit and the more I participate across different WikiProjects.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 19 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]
Keep. A great part of articles are random villages. This is because the objective is to cover every village in the world. This should be kept no matter what. Earth605 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep It does look like a village on GMaps, but there is a history of the Iranian census being misrepresented. Could we get confirmation from a Farsi speaker? Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to address the WPV issues
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment - is this article listed in the Indian census for Bihar? If so, the place is notable as legally recognized. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find it listed as a village either under this name, or as Naukatola (probably its actual name; "Raxaul" seems to be for disambiguation), Nauka (from GEOnet Names Server) or Nauka Tola. It seems to be part of Hardiya Panchayat. Peter James (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails verification. I couldn't find anything on the maps that I could match with this, and from the discussion above it appears that a textual source has not turned up. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Geography

Geography-related proposed deletions