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

Chato, Peru

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

The one source linked is invalid and I am unable to find any source at all proving this place is real. Might be a hoax article. Jolielover (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (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/2024 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this article was made by a hoax, as it is made by a long-time editor who is still active today. Those types of editors rarely make hoaxes. Thoughts, @Bejnar? -1ctinus📝🗨 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some way of involving Spanish-language editors on ADFs involving Spanish-language topics in articles? Searching for small towns / villages has is often difficult for towns in English-speaking countries and using English language sources. In this case, the search is further complicated by the need to search Spanish-language sources and using names rendered into English. Paul H. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is now https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-341758 - it says it's the same as es:Chato Chico; there is also es:Chato Grande in the same area so whether "Chato" can only refer to Chato Chico or to both, or is a combination or both places or just an ambiguous name is unclear. The article should probably be moved to Chato Chico. Peter James (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timur's Gates

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

WP:PROD reverted. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (which the two in the article currently are not). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Uzbekistan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jizzakh. There's a paragraph about the gates in one travel guide and, apart from the websites cited in the article, that's about it. There's not enough coverage; I'm fine with outright deletion too. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say it again: Let's not delete it. I personally went thru those Gates (as my photos in that article show), and felt it important. I am embarrased to see some Wikipedians against such an important asset of Uzbekistan and of the world. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsville, Indiana

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

I'm having considerable trouble in Floyd County, as the book citations are all failing verification. There are two references to a Scottsville in it, but neither is on the cited page, and it's not clear that either of them refers to a place in Indiana. And in any case both are location name drops. The topo seems to indicate that someone thought about a town there, but there's no evidence it ever amounted to anything. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Marys, Floyd County, Indiana

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

Actually labelled as "St. Marys Ch." on topos from the 1950s and earlier, it is indeed St. Mary of the Knobs Catholic Church, which after 200 years has a big barn of a church, a school (which they took back from the county) and a large cemetery. No town though. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable locale.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan, Indiana

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

Here we have a case where it was the GNIS compilers were a bit too trusting, for the source is not the topos, but is instead an 1876 map with (presumably) a dot on it. No topo shows anything here until it gets back-added from GNIS, and the cited source fails verification: the page in question is about the founding of the city of Louisville and doesn't mention this place. I searched the rest of the book but all mentions were of people except one for a street where a church was located. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonexistent place, no information found, and as nom pointed out the second source never mentions the place at all. That leaves GNIS, which does not confer notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Francis, Indiana

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

Here GNIS and the USPS conspire to make up a "community", because the actual "community" here is the seminary itself. There is a post office, and it is in the buildings of the seminary, which sits in majestic isolation at the end of a long driveway, surrounded by a great deal of forest, as it always has been. One may decide that the facility itself is notable, but that's a different article. The fact is there's nothing town-like here, and this article should not exist. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this was originally about the seminary, but was turned into a place article on the strength of the post office presence. We've had other cases, however, of post offices in places which have no associated community. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan, Indiana

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

Appears to be a rail spot: right now it's overrun by sprawl from Louisville but go back into the 1950s and there's nothing there but the rails. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huber, Indiana

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

Labelled as "Huber Sta." in old enough topos, it's a T intersection next to the tracks with nothing around until a motel shows up in the mid-1950s; later industrial sprawl catches up to it. No mention in the county history. I think this was just a wail spot. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally an intersection of two roads. Looks like this place isn't notable. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 06:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fand Mons

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

No notability, the only reliable source besides the one in the article is the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature, that just says that its name is officially recognized by IAU, with no information about the mountain itself. Artem.G (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Geography. Artem.G (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of montes on Venus. Praemonitus (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longwood Crossing, Indiana

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

The references say this was a post office, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't that how settlements were established back in the day? Having a post office established usually gave more credibility. Obviously not a good argument today for WP:GEO but might explain why the article was created. – The Grid (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Most formal settlements in that era were "platted", that is, someone laid out lots and streets and got people to settle there. These have a characteristic grid pattern which appears all over the midwest. Post offices popped up in response to the need for people to come and get their mail, and they were placed pretty much anywhere: stores, railroad stations (as a rule), and even peoples' homes. The further west one goes, the more likely they were to be isolated, and the4y often moved when the postmaster changed. If you look particularly in Indiana there are a lot of post offices which have short lifespans at the end of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th, when RFD made them superfluous. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham Memorial

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

Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)

I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there should not be articles for parish wards, but Hykeham Memorial (formerly North Hykeham Memorial) (https://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fbackend.710302.xyz%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE05014436), with the same boundaries as the parish ward (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/north_kesteven_order_map.pdf), is a ward of North Kesteven district. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham

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

This article began as a redirect to provide a destination for a railway station that was otherwise red-linked, but is actually in North Hykeham. The article attempts to link North Hykeham and South Hykeham ~~(a non-notable area of a couple of country lanes) into one entity that doesn't really exist,~~ merely because they share part of a name and are adjacent. There is really no need for this article, which is basically nothing more than a disambiguation ~~between one notable article (North Hykeham) and an article that doesn't exist about the non-notable South Hykeham Elemimele~~ (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologise, South Hykeham does exist. I still think we don't need Hykeham as it's really a dab masquerading as an article, so I'll let this AfD stand. Elemimele (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems useful as a WP:BROADCONCEPT page covering the villages of North and South Hykeham as well as the railway station that links them together. Clearly there needs to be something at this page, and what's there now seems as good as any, although it could do with a few references. Alternatively just have a disambiguation page, but we shouldn't delete. — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say: if you check the map you'll find that Hykeham station is at the North end of North Hykeham, not particularly close to South Hykeham. The station actually serves various non-Hykeham electoral wards of Lincoln, and is closer to them than it is to the village of South Hykeham. North Hykeham is contiguous with suburbs of Lincoln, but distinct from South Hykeham. Here's a map that sums it up: [1]. I'd argue that we don't need a dab page when there are only two entries to disambiguate; hat-notes are more appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but convert to a dab page. PamD 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... as I've just done. PamD 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB per above. Dank Jae 23:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since there are now three targets, it's valid as a dab. I am happy for this AfD to be closed as per Pam without waiting further, if appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perumapalayam

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

No sources since 2008. A search for RS shows mostly references to this page. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It’s long overdue time to clean up. Bearian (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found some sources and added to the article. Unverified claims should be removed.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Erode district. Not opposed to Delete. No significant coverage on the village in reliable sources and evaluation of added sources have just passing mention. Still fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peyanvilai

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

No sources since 2008. Article appears to be entirely WP:OR. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Couldn't find any sources for the topic. Agreeing with User:Smallangryplanet that it is WP:OR. Either delete or redirect to Thoothukudi District. TNM101 (chat) 11:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found this article and added it to the article. Unsourced claims should be removed.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thoothukudi district. Not opposed to Delete. No reliable source with significant coverage on the village. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arumuganeri. Apparently, this was a former village that has now been merged into Arumuganeri (another former village now designated as a town). The following query may help find some sources: site:gov.in "Arumuganeri" "Peyanvilai". utcursch | talk 01:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thoothukudi district per RangersRus. This is a very common outcome. Bearian (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordillera Negra (Chile)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sunbury earthquake

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

While it was the strongest in the immediate area within the last 120 years, it had limited effects like buckled roads and cracked plaster, so I think this one probably fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Australia. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:N(EQ) states that notable earthquakes should garner significant media coverage, which this one did (even non-Australian media outlets such as CNN reported on it) and it was mentioned in news reports into 2024 (see here). WP:N(EQ) also states, however, that shaking of intensity VII or greater is generally necessary for notability, which this earthquake did not reach, although in my view notability should not be defined by the magnitude or intensity. Personally, I would keep this article, but I would understand totally if it is deleted. Redtree21 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Minor jolt, startled a lot of people but nothing beyond. Effects are also too small for inclusion into the 2023 earthquakes list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwa Saray Ghar

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

The only information I can find for this cites this article, and there doesn't seem to be any RS for this in an English search or, as far as I can tell, Pashto. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the only source in the Pashto Wikipedia's entry is the English Wikipedia and that searching "Dwa Saray Ghar" in both English and Pashto on Google Search and Google Books turns up few if any results does not give me much hope in its notability. Lazman321 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources. Only user-generated content found. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 16:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreliable source. Can't find it after googling. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

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

No damage, injuries, or deaths, and no lasting impact, so may fail WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Tennessee. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't cause any damage or injuries. Doesn't seem notable. Hardly any coverage other than on the day of the quake. Seems to fail WP:EVENT to me. Procyon117 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "seismic events" section of Eastern Tennessee seismic zone where the earthquake is already mentioned. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walpole (CDP), Massachusetts

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

A user who has only edited about this article states that there is no such census-designated place because a government guideline does no allow one to be within an incorporated place; the guideline does exist. (They then edited the article to say that it is not a CDP.) In the talk page, they wanted to proposed it be deleted, but didn't know how, so I am doing it for them. However, there is a US Census Bureau entry for Walpole CDP, Massaschusetts. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. There is also a Walpole (CDP), New Hampshire within Walpole, New Hampshire, so obviously the guideline means nothing or is being misinterpreted. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the entirety of most northeastern states is incorporated, the census doesn't see these towns the same way as towns in other states, so they still allow CDPs within them to identify population centers. Lots of these same-named CDPs in all of these states. Though they do make me question whether we should really consider all CDPs automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge with main article The reason for the CDP is that the legal town is much larger than the core settlement town part of Walpole. This can all be explained better in the main article instead of taking it out of context as it is now. CDPs aren't really notable independently of the communities they act as statistical proxies for. I expect the NH example ought to receive the same treatment. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article per Mangoe. Like many CDPs in New England, this CDP is nothing more than a statistical entity for an arbitrary section of a town. It doesn't exist as a real place distinct from the town itself, and this article is nothing more than contextless statistics. (Compare to Whitinsville, Massachusetts, and Housatonic, Massachusetts, where the CDPs are distinct villages with their own histories and identities.) I would recommend a wider discussion to decide which CDPs should be merged, but in the meantime this seems like an obvious merge to me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates Corner, Indiana

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

Another short-lived rural post office elevated to a settlement. There's nothing there and I find no mentions of it. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Delaware County, Indiana. The unincorporated town was already merged into the county. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the discussion is that it apparently isn't and wasn't a town at all, so I don't see the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable locale.TH1980 (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austerby

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

Really cannot see any case for a separate article; this was until recently a redirect to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Which seem s appropriate. TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Austerby is described as a hamlet under the entry for Bourne in a Lincolnshire Trade Directory and appears on older Ordnance Survey maps. Austerby without "The" is a street name in The Austerby, Bourne. The ward's full name is Bourne Austerby. Pevsner has an Austerby Manor House as a titled entry, but notes it under Bourne. In a recent WikiProject UK geography discussion on whether UK wards required a separate article, most contributors thought they should be subject to passing the GNG - but one experienced editor was of the opinion wards come under WP:NPLACE and have a presumption of notability, so not clearcut. Close call but on balance, I support the nominator's redirect - to Bourne, Lincolnshire, though may change to keep, if further sources are put forward. Rupples (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Station, Boston

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

This is an electoral ward of just 2,700 people with a town of 45,000 people. All that the article really says is "the ward exists". It does not prove its notability and it is for that complete lack of notability that I am nominating it for deletion. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, Redirect to Borough of Boston#Elections, which has a list of the wards and a link leading to Boston Borough Council elections and thence to pages such as 2023 Boston Borough Council election which give the detailed election results for the ward (2023 Boston Borough Council election#Station etc). And add to disambiguation page at Station#Places: if it has any encyclopedic value, it merits a dab page entry. PamD 14:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: On further consideration, as it isn't a place it probably shouldn't have comma disambiguation, so it should be renamed as Station (Boston ward) if it survives either as a page or as a redirect. (Or should that be "(Boston, Lincolnshire, ward)"? Should all these places being disambiguated as ", Boston" actually be disambiguated as ", Boston, Lincolnshire"?) PamD 15:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect and/or merge to Boston, Lincolnshire as an alternative to deletion. It looks like the Politics section at least mentions the Station ward. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to Boston, Lincolnshire#Borough Council wards or redirect to Borough of Boston#Elections per above. I would prefer the merging option. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Not opposed to merging/redirecting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ward is not a legally recognised place, it is a political division which is not covered in GEOLAND. Therefore should meet GNG which this doesn't. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards in the UK are legally recognised places. They are created by Acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments and written into the statute book, you genuinely could not ask for more legal recognition. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge wards are political structures not places (unless the ward covers a legally recognised place) so do not meet GEOLAND. Merge to Boston.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have strong feelings about whether or not to delete this, just throwing another option into the discussion: you could merge/redirect to List of electoral wards in Lincolnshire. There's generally a limited and standard amount of encyclopaedic information that you can say about a ward, which makes them well suited to just using a table. Some of the other "List of electoral wards" articles - e.g. List of electoral wards in Bristol and List of electoral wards in Dorset give examples of how you could use tables to cover the main information (population, location, etc) about all Lincolnshire wards in one list article. Joe D (t) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus against keep, but no clear consensus for where the article should be redirected/merged to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 3 or 4 different Merge/Redirection target articles suggested and we need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The other electoral wards lists link to separate articles for the wards - Bristol and Dorset are unitary authorities, but Boston is a district, and there is a similar amount of information available for district wards (unlike town council wards such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent). Peter James (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions