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]

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]
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of places named Sokil[edit]

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

List that's been a stub since 2010 consisting of solely red links with little chance of expansion. I initially merged the content to the disambiguation page Sokil but was opposed by Bkonrad due to the lack of any blue links. As an WP:ATD, I still support merging this content into that disambiguation page but in any case don't think this topic is notable enough for its own stand-alone article. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Ukraine. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sokil – the oblast links make up for the villages being red links, as WP:DABSTYLE says the link can be in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of the entries fail both WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL and would be removed if merged. As such, merging is functionally equivalent to deletion. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bkonrad. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of that statistics website is weird, but if I get it right, it expresses the population numbers in thousands of people, so this is a number of villages with population in the hundreds, and at least one over a thousand? That's completely normal WP:POTENTIAL, so they should be listed in their higher level administrative unit article and these entries merged into Sokil (disambiguation). The Ukrainian interlanguage link from Sokil shows that they are included there and mostly have articles. --Joy (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy reason to delete. This page is no less notable than any other in Category:Set index articles on populated places in Ukraine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Runningtiger. Agletarang (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balghar[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:UNREF for 16 years. I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editor created article in 2008 with two un-sourced edits, and then never edited on Wikipedia again. Lots of subsequent editors since then, but no one has provided sourcing. — Maile (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - agree wit above. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosurahu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Struggling to find 3 sources not some WMF project or copying off it, not 1 source of in-depth coverage at all. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of islands of Estonia. Actually many one-sentence articles in Category:Islands of Estonia should be redirected to the aforementioned list--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I will be happy to use AWB to redirect the other useless non-notable one-liners in the category. Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of islands of Estonia. But, I do not agree that AWB should be used as a blanket as suggested by Reywas92, as some of the "non-notable one-liners in the category" of articles are actually notable and can be enlarged with sources. ExRat (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify them then. Anyone is welcome to restore from a redirect and add sources. It's a utter joke to have dozens of these junk one-liners and to think mass-produced pages need individualized discussion. I would not redirect any pages with sources, only those like this one or Sokulaid with no content or sourcing at all. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, conversely, you can identify which ones you wish to redirect then; and anyone is welcome to enlarge an article and add sources to articles that are already created and are notable instead of a mass redirect to all island articles which you deem are "non-notable". While I agree that many of these articles can be redirected, I disagree that a blanket mass redirect is in order. As I stated, many of these articles that were created (most, seemingly, by User:NielsenGW), are actually notable per WP:GEONATURAL. Even Sokulaid is possibly notable per WP:GEONATURAL, as it has a listing at EELIS Infoleht. So, yes, discussions do need to take place. I'm not opposed to redirects when appropriate. I am opposed to mass redirects without proper discussions. ExRat (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond (Illinois)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article. SeymourHolcomb (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website. Mjks28 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 24 June 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.

Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, Asia, India, and Manipur. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be moved to Wesea, as the base title does not exist and the current title misuses the parenthetical for an acronym. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21#Category:Wesean_National_Leaders is related to this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that any of the sources use this term. It is not made up by the article creator, but all the sources I can find are referring to rebel militant groups (Times of India discussing a group). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find Wesea and any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow roomers[edit]

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

(Note: my PROD was removed.) Not a notable term. According to the source in the article, which only mentions the term once in a quote, the term was made up by John Fraser Hart, and I could not find any record of this term being used by anyone else. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Social science. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made-up topic or possible hoax. The single "source" was added 12 years after creation and does not support the term, it merely uses the familiar "elbow room". Could not find any sources that use the term. –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Correction - The article does mention "elbow roomers", but this single mention is not sufficient to establish notability. Still a Delete. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t a hoax; the newspaper article (not fully accessible from the link in the Wikipedia article) quotes the professor who states he made up the term “elbow roomers”. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accessed the article using the Wikipedia Library. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I was on mobile and didn't realize I was only seeing the first few paragraphs. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ONE source used for an article is a rather thin argument for notability. I also don't find anything else that uses this term, other than this list [1] on a website for architects. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete One fellow's phrase which didn't catch on. GBook hits, save one, are all either a single children's book or are people complaining about tables too close in restaurants; even with that there are less than ten hits. For all I know there may be a widely-used term for these people, but this isn't it. Mangoe (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: the dePRODder’s comments can be found on the article talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The term appears to be lightly used in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS across a handful of sources to mean different things: people who look for more space in the suburbs (ArchDaily), components of a masonry structure (A'Design Awards), people who jostle for space (Saltman), and people looking for more space in restaurants (Zagat). None of these amount to WP:SIGCOV and there's no evidence that the term is in circulation to mean what the article says it means. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Acres, Mamaroneck[edit]

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

Non-notable location within Mamaroneck, New York. Only thing I can find out about the place is that a 2021 trench collapse that killed a worker occurred there, but I doubt that alone would pass the notability criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 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]

Flindt Landing station[edit]

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

Non notable whistle stop on the Canadian National transcontinental line. Not even a stain station, this is just a spot along the tracks where the train will stop and let you off. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from independent sources. Provided sources mention it as a dot on a map, nothing more. Astaire (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate list of stops (if one doesn't exist, create it first). Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Canadian#Winnipeg to Toronto as ATD Jumpytoo Talk 04:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carreg yr Halen[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage - I could only find this article; everything else is trivial mentions when discussing Menai Bridge. While its location is sourced, that doesn't make it notable, and the rest of the information in the article is unsourced and I can't find it anywhere else, so is probably original research. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wales and Islands. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a number of local sources exist and are quoted. The island marked one of the important ferry crossimg location of the Menai Strait before the suspension bridge was constructed. Meets the standard of WP:GEONATURAL. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NATFEAT. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Menai Strait: seems to be the best idea... For the dozen or so lines of text now in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menai Bridge. This little outcrop of rock clearly has more significance to the town than to the body of water, but that significance doesn't become notability because of WP:INHERITED. Claims of being an important crossing point would meet the mark if there was any verifiable sigcov of this fact, but I don't believe there has been. Doesn't meet GEOLAND, is a tiny tidal island in the middle of nowhere, insufficient content to be its own article. BrigadierG (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It's not clear that the claims of the article are true. The cite for the ferry fails verification, and really I have to doubt the utility of a tiny, bare island in such a service. If we have to have something I would to go with the strait, but don't see a merger of a likely inaccurate article. Mangoe (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet and two different Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results (source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 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.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a legally recognized administrative unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale dozens of barangay articles have been redirected to their city/town articles, and a few were deleted through AfD's. Too many barangays (numbering around 40,000) mean too many stubbish or poorly-referenced articles to maintain, leading to frequent vandalisms or addition of unencyclopedic content like lists of schools, hospitals, facilities, businesses, landmarks, or tourist attractions. The issue was last discussed here (admittedly, there was no firm and final closure). See also Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 15 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!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memadangu[edit]

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

Can't find anything but postal directories about this village — not even its coordinates. Unsourced since creation in 2011. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOLAND - is a census designated place, has a post office, has government recognition. BrigadierG (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which source says that? Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty, but https://www.indiatvnews.com/pincode/kerala/ernakulam/memadangu as an example BrigadierG (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see https://www.indiatvnews.com/pincode/kerala/ernakulam/aluva-town-bus-stand. It doesn't mean we should have an article about the Aluva Town Bus Stand Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GEOLAND BrigadierG (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to know which source refers to it as a census designated place. Surely, the census itself would be the logical source, not the unuseful link you posted, and with the census, we would also have its population. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 11 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!} 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a delete until the failure of WP:V is addressed. The above link doesn't help with anything, and so far the discussions has yielded little else than WP:PERX. Google Maps redirects Memadangu to Mekkadambu, but that is southwest of Muvattupuzha, not southeast. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/29073/download/32254/29647_1981_ERN.pdf

It's a census-designated place BrigadierG (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BrigadierG provided a link to 1981 census data above which contains data of Memadangu on page 150. Population 1,642 back then. However, it's only a subdivision of the village of Arakuzha. While it is a legally recognized populated place per WP:GEOLAND, I wonder if we should have pages of individual village subdivisions. I – perhaps unorthodoxly – suggest a Merge to Arakuzha. Broc (talk) 15:16, 22 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!} 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions[edit]