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[edit]

Pontiac, Indiana[edit]

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

So what do you do when the only substantive source basically says that this place never really amounted to anything, i.e., it isn't really notable? That's what the county history says: the place was laid out on speculation, but in the end the railroad either picked the more northerly route it has now, o wasn't built at all (the text doesn't make this clear). What we're left with is a crossroads with some houses and "Carbon Church", which I can't find much about besides a FB page. Also, the location given is just wrong. Older topos put the label in the right place, but round about 2013 both it and Carbon are shown about 1/2 mile west of their actual locations; they fixed Carbon but not Pontiac. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carbon, Indiana. There does seems to have been a small settlement there, but this 1915 map simply identifies the site as "South Carbon" (which makes sense since it's less than half a mile from the town). The few other old maps I found that showed it as a populated site didn't name it at all, and none mentioned Pontiac. Given the site's lack of notability, the presence of "Carbon Church", the fact that it's right on the edge of the larger town, etc., I don't think it merits its own article. I recommend redirecting to Carbon, Indiana. I can also add a brief mention of the site to the Carbon article. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastport, Idaho[edit]

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

Just like the Kingsgate article, I propose that we redirect this one into the Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing article. There's only a few sources, and I feel that a couple of sentences can fit in the border crossing rather than being placed in an article that feels like a stub with nothing interesting or pleasing to the reader. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See historic images here. See this United States government report: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/pnp/habshaer/id/id0100/id0128/data/id0128data.pdf More coverage of Eastport: https://bonnersferryherald.com/search/vertical/news.story/?q=Eastport From Medium.com: https://medium.com/@cheri_28877/canadian-border-crossing-eastport-idaho-69df61947348 Also, https://boundary.idgenweb.org/history/post/eastport-idaho Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that WP:MEDIUM is generally considered unreliable. No comment on the other sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge/expand The issue here is really that now the border crossing has basically co-opted the town. I think the latter makes the most sense as a section within the crossing article rather than as a separate article. Also, I have to point out that the only "good" source here, that is, the only one that has content which could be used as the basis for writing article text, is not likely to cut the mustard as a reliable source, given the lack of authorship info and citations. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crookton, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't keep using WP:NPLACE as a rational and seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. It's just a point on a railway line and I've found no indication that that particular point is of any notability. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Arizona. TarnishedPath^talk 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not a legally recognized place, and my search on DDG, Google Books and Scholar turned unfruitful. WP:NPLACE says to defer to GNG in this case. It is misleadingly categorized as a populated place in the navbox. Just look at the satellite map to see why that is wrong.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This source calls it a railroad station. No indication this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Crook, for whom it is named. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That article has no mention of the place, nor should it, as it's a completely non-notable unpopulated railroad waypoint with no connection to its namesake. They might as well have named it King Henry VIII. In the unlikely event anyone wanted information about Crookton, they would probably search for the railroad division, not the historical figure. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, I don't think redirect is a viable alternative to deletion as there are multiple alternative redirects that could be used. E.g. U.S. Route 66 in Arizona or Southern Transcon could also be used in addition to George Crook. I considered redirect prior to nominating this and didn't precisely for that reason. TarnishedPath^talk 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per previous discussion. Mangoe (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table (landform)[edit]

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

Although this is used in the name Table Mountain, I couldn't find reliable sources to show this as notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Move: It should be kept as it is an important category of landform. If kept, the name of this article needs to be changed to Tableland, which the proper terminology for this type of landform. Table is not the proper terminology and needs to be changed. Go see:

Migoń, P. and Duszyński, F., 2022. Landscapes and landforms in coarse clastic sedimentary tablelands–is there a unifying theme?. Catena, 218, no. 106545. open access Paul H. (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mesa, which even means "table". I'm not convinced this needs to be a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging with mesa is an incorrect, confusing, and scienfitically unjustifiable move as not all tablelands are mesas. Mesa is a subcatergory of tableland. They are not equivalent terms. This can be seen in the below open access paper in which mseas, buttes, and pinnacles are all considered to be types of "tablelands".

Migoń, P., Duszyński, F., Jancewicz, K. and Kotwicka, W., 2020. Late evolutionary stages of residual hills in tablelands (Elbsandsteingebirge, Germany). Geomorphology, 367, p.107308. open access Paul H. (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Tableland, which is clearly in the literature. The case for a separate article would be made by the sources in mesa, but I can't access those at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if a person does a Google scholar search for Migoń and tableland he or she gets 325 hits; for tableland and escarpment he or she gets 8,390 hits; and for geomorphology and tableland he or she gets 11,500 hits. A number of these papers have URLs for PDF files attached to them. Thus, there are plenty of accessiable potential sources that are currently available online and downable to be sources for an article. In addition, there exists online an abundance of public domain, open source digital elevation models, and georeferenced raster graphics of topographic maps and aerial photography to create figures from. Paul H. (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halang, Calamba[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source being used (Nov. 2018 archived copy) does not back up the claim of the barangay being "one of the richest barangays in the city". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I might be wrong, but there are some teeny tiny Sources in Google Books, A 7,000 population barangay seems "notable enough" to me. I also see a dead source in BPI probably stating about Halang, like I said, I might be wrong.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bucal[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Generally unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source (2019 archived copy) does not back up the statement on the etymology of the barangay toponym. Much of the article is a directory of their establishments and landmarks: a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bucal, Calamba (to distinguish it from other barangays named Bucal, such as those in Sariaya, Tanza, Magdalena, and Amadeo) and then redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't move an article as part of a closure but I can close this as a Redirect and then the Redirect can be moved. Is this acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batino[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). The only source, [1], only discusses the eponymous plant and does not mention anything about this barangay (also, no mention of the city and the province). See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be another barangay named Batino in Calapan. Perhaps move it first to Batino, Calamba, and then redirect it to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast[edit]

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

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place. The current population is irrelevant. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gven that the rational was WP:NOPAGE, this vote should be struck as irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, it's verifiable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:GEOLAND only suggests inclusion, not an individual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.

Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?
Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?

There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.
Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?

If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.

I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it needs one or the other, and it’s easier to start here. Qwirkle (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vilangkattuvalasu[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Geonames.nga.mil reports that the village (which it spells Vilangāttuvalasu) is located at 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333 14145226 N (Approved) . Google Maps shows a temple in the village with the address 4Q47+HCR, vilankattu valasu, Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu 638109, India. So if that is correct, we also know the village's PIN code. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t agree that these are substantial enough to show notability. The temple is the only place in that location that uses this name, whereas all other buildings surrounding it use the name Kodimudi, the taluk and the taluk headquarters. The temple name may be user generated and may not reflect official designation. Kazamzam (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything in a search of the 2011 India Census data. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng[edit]

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

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

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [2] [3] [4] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to vote because I'm not familiar with how region designations work in Indonesia, but if this were to be deleted, shouldn't Kedaung Kali Angke, Cengkareng Barat and Cengkareng Timur also be deleted because they are unsourced stubs about administrative villages? C F A 💬 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao, Samar[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

@Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.

As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND is a subject-specific notability guideline, and overrides local consensus. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline overrides any WP:SNG. WP:GNG overrides WP:GEOLAND. The argument here is does this place have WP:SIGCOV anywhere? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

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

Ref:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mentioned the following:

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

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

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

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Hill, Indiana[edit]

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

An area on the west side of Brazil, I'm not getting reading on whether it was ever considered a town unto itself. What I can see of it looks like maybe a neighborhood, maybe just a locale.... Right now it's just a phrase on a map and the name of a cemetery. Mangoe (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

References

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

I tried to get information on this line, without a great deal of success. Everyone talking about it says that the east end was in Harmony; but they they don't all say that the west end was in Cottage Hill. I neve found a source that showed a map of the line. And again, this is a passing reference: stations and stops ae not the same thing as towns. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a particularly bad nomination; a simple newspaper search will generate hundreds of articles and mentions. See, for example, just whipping up a random something-something quickly for our purposes here, THIS town coverage from a special correspondent, datelined Cottage Hill, from the South Bend Tribune of June 25, 1908. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS from a 1911 issue of the Brazil Daily Times mentions a "Cottage Hill band" giving a box supper at "Cottage Hill school". Carrite (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these more or less passing references says that Cottage Hill is a town unto itself and not just a neighborhood of Brazil. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search shows a gazetteer from the 1860s showing it was listed as a post office. [5] on page 530 talks about the person who bought a farm and cleaned the place up and then created the Cottage Hill cemetery using his surname as a possessive pronoun. I'm also not convinced by the newspaper clippings which have been presented so far. One is from South Bend and all the other small places it lists are from the greater South Bend region, but this is on the other side of Indiana, and the second just shows there was a school named Cottage Hill. I'm willing to be convinced, but I think this was a post office and cemetery and farm based on my research, and I typically will tend to vote Keep on these things. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions[edit]

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

[1]