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

Inpyeong-dong

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG. A sub-department within a sub-division of a city government is generally not encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Park, California

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

I can't find anything for a College Park in Ventura County; it's not mentioned in Ventura County, California. At best this is a case of WP:TWODABS, with one obvious primary topic, but train stations are rarely, if ever, named by state rather than city. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could it be referring to Oxnard.gov/college-park, which is in Ventura County? — Maile (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABMENTION applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Oxnard, California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not mentioned there, and there's College Park, San Jose. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Maile, seeing that College Park (Oxnard) now exists. For a similar treatment, see Highland Park, Arizona and Highland Park (WP:OTHERSTUFF and all, but it does demonstrate that there is precedent for this, as it provides a certain utility in avoiding the longer list, which is also sub-divided by type rather than location). StonyBrook _babble 23:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge add items on list on this page to disam page College Park, and Redirect College Park, CA to same College Park. Djflem (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Carrollton, Indiana

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

We've reached a new nadir in searching, with Google's AI proclaiming that There is no town named "New Carrollton" in Indiana; the search results for this name actually describe locations in Maryland. The closest sounding place in Indiana is the town of New Carlisle, which is a distinct community in LaPorte County. It flatly refused to do a GBook search, and when I forced it, I got the response, "It looks like there aren’t any ‘Books’ matches on this topic". So the only sources are the 1876 atlas and Jim Forte's site. It's possible this is a very old, short-lived town, but I think we've hit a new mark in "fails verification" here. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Mangoe ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real place name and not something made out of whole cloth [1], but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Delete Katzrockso (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was a post office too [2]. Still not notable but just adding for more information Katzrockso (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout, Indiana

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

A searching nightmare, all I have to go on is the post office and GMaps, which shows that the buildings at the spot shown on topos belong to one, maybe two farmsteads. I think the post office was all there was to this. Mangoe (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Indiana. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find absolutely no hits on normal search, Newspapers.com, Google Books, or Scholar, and no other mention outside of the post office ref here. On satellite and street view, it seems like one house and some farm buildings, definitely not an unincorporated community as claimed by the article and not notable. HurricaneZeta^C 22:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two pieces on this community [3] [4], but I'm more confused than when I started. Worth noting that the first Guthrie article states it "had a blacksmith shop, post office, general store, creamery, tavern and a one-room school". It looks like the post office that we say is at Delaware, Indiana was first at this location ("Lookout") and was under that name. At some point, the "new" community Delaware emerged and this one was known as Schutte's Corner. Then between 1912 and 1918, the community was renamed to Lookout.

More info confirming post office dates here [5]

I wouldn't be opposed to a merge/redirect to another target, however. Katzrockso (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be able to pass WP:GNG with the sources found above. It seems it was named Lookout by Robert A. Creigmile, a politician who was the youngest member of the Indiana House of Representatives in 1893. Aneirinn (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ninlil (crater)

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

Cannot find any substantial mentions in reliable secondary sources. It seems just like this is a crater with a cataloged name. I checked Google, Google News, Google Books Google Scholar and did find any reference to this, except where it was indexed in a few books. It looks like it fails WP:NASTRO. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Geography. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of craters on Ganymede. It is just some random crater on Ganymede with no significance whatsoever. Thirtyfourninety (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree that a redirect is most appropriate with the list of craters page as a good target. Most of the info in the article could easily be included in the blurbs in the list table. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of craters on Ganymede – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Higashi-Kakogawa

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

Unsourced since 2004. As a section of Kakogawa City, Higashi-Kakogawa does not fall under WP:GEOLAND. It must demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. I redirected this to Kakogawa City per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOPAGE but it was contested and the website of the city was added as a "source". This however is not independent of the city and is not usable for notability. Without indpendent sources this fails WP:GNG, and per WP:NOPAGE this would be better covered anyway in context in the article on the city rather than as a stand alone page.4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kakogawa, Hyōgo I looked at the corresponding article in Japanese Wikipedia, and I am not convinced that the topic is notable enough for a separate article. The area is real so it certainly deserves some mention but probably not as an independent article. -- Taku (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laugheryville, Indiana

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

Another, um, square on the 1876 atlas (they liked squares rather than dots) of which there is no trace of other than what Baker has to say. I'll remind those responding that platting is not proof of a town's existence; it only shows that someone wanted there to be a town there. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [6] page 102 here is all I can find Katzrockso (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book says it was platted but never built. Unable to find anything stating this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but it didn't seem reliable. Katzrockso (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been chary of relying on it, because I have to suspect it is dependent on us if nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is of no significance. Aneirinn (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Territory of the Congo River Alliance

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

Unnecessary fork of Congo River Alliance. Laun chba ller 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Alot of the information here isn't even mentioned on the Congo River Alliance page. JaxsonR (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - Delete JaxsonR (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Would merge it, but also would copy the country infobox to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37620-98 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. JaxsonR (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimtown, Missouri

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

No evidence this place was officially recognized or otherwise meets WP:GEOLAND, and a BEFORE search finds no significant coverage. Sources 1 and 3 verify its existence but nothing more. Sources 2 and 4 have trivial mentions of "Jamestown", which may or may not be the same as "Jimstown", but no sources explicitly connect the two names. (Note that there was a different Jamestown that was known as Jimtown elsewhere in Missouri.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source regarding the Jimtown in Andrew County which notes that it was a railway station with a few buildings, primarily a regionally significant church. This is less significant coverage but is representative of what I've been able to turn up - the location was primarily defined by a church, which was considered to be regionally significant. Normally I'm not a fan of merging over questionably-notable geostubs to articles for the larger subdivision, but I think there is a good case to merge to ~~Andrew County, Missouri#History~~ Jefferson Township, Andrew County, Missouri given that I've been able to turn up sources indicating that this place actually had significance in the county around the time of the Civil War. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with the larger subdivision, which in this case would be a township (not county), called Jefferson Township, Andrew County, Missouri makes sense. This procedure of merging a smaller place with its township has occurred a number of times in northwest Missouri, (e.g. Carmack, Missouri, Elk Dale, Missouri, Center Point, Missouri). SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging to the township would be better - I didn't realize that Andrew County was one of the township counties. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me to merging to the township. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was onces described as a "trading point" [7]. Merge to the aforementioned township per above.

Further coverage on the church [8] Katzrockso (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ammadam

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

Unsourced since creation in 2006. Tagged for original research since 2010. Fails WP:GNG / WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - villages are generally ok for notability per WP:GEOLAND. On Google Books we find many sources indicating the use of Ammadam as address. There is/was an Ammadam Post Office, an Ammadam Match Company, an Ammadam Regional Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (could be same as the Ammadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd?), an Ammadam St Antony's Church and so forth. Subject of study on fauna. Presumably the village was merged into the grama panchayat only after independence. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Described as a ward of the Paralam Grama Panchayat here [9]. It's definitely some sort of community, as many people are listed as living there here [10]]. I would say merge up, but we don't have the larger geographic unit as an article, only the Malayalam wiki does (ml:പാറളം ഗ്രാമപഞ്ചായത്ത്). Absent that article, a weak keep. There is a bunch of stuff in Malayalam about schools with that name അമ്മാടം Katzrockso (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would prefer to redirect up to a panchyat or district. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Lake (disambiguation)

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

unnecessary disambiguation page Joeykai (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, alternatively keep and move to Junior Lake, with the article currently at Junior Lake being moved to Junior Lake (baseball player) per WP:NOPRIMARY. However, AfD is not the venue for this, a WP:Requested move at Talk:Junior Lake (disambiguation) is. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Geography, Baseball, Canada, and Dominican Republic. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The baseball player was moved to the primary topic per Talk:Junior Lake#Requested move 22 December 2015 and the DAB page was moved. Since there is only one other topic, a hatnote is sufficient. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how a run-of-the-mill sportsball athlete with 4 years of major league tenure and who hasn't played in 9 seasons is a primary topic over a geographic feature. I think the issue should be revisited at the proper venue (RM); the previous one is 10 years old now. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. A hatnote pointing to the geographical feature is sufficient, and is already present on the baseball player's article. Frank Anchor 15:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolleyville, Indiana

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

Another spot back-entered from the 1876 atlas, I'm just not getting anything here except for hits on places of the same name in other states. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear to be a real place. Aneirinn (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, nothing located at the site at all, and the name doesn't appear on topo maps until 2010. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson, Ripley County, Indiana

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

It has been a while since we had a GNIS entry back-added from the 1876 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana, and here we have some significant dissonance between it and the topos. Possibly the rail line was re-laid and the old route taken over by a road. Nonetheless it seems clear that this was a rail point that was forgotten over the years. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book [11] states simply that "Jackson is located at the intersection of County Road 1000W and US 50", which checks out with the map, but also sounds like a GNIS transcription. I can't find an online version of the atlas mentioned above, but even if it were accurate, that's one source, and there doesn't appear to be anything community-like about the place now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this ever was an actual community. Nebraska, Indiana is about a mile down the road, making it further unlikely another community existed that close by in rural Indiana. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harittu

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

Unsourced article on a district in the city of Turku. Was redirected to the Turku article because it was unsourced. Was reverted and the city website (not independent and WP:PRIMARY) was added to the page. I still think this topic is better covered in context in the Turku article per WP:NOPAGE; particularly since there appears to be no WP:SIGCOV on this district currently in the article and the statistics are not verified to sources. Districts and neighborhoods inside cities aren't inherently notable, and can easily be covered in the article on the city. I think we would need better and substantially more content and sourcing to justify a WP:SPINOUT. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turku, of which it is a tiny part. It has been tagged as unsourced for almost 16 years. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. The ward Uittamo-Skanssi would be a more focused target if we decide to redirect. However, sources do exist to write an article about the history of Harittu. This one is focused purely on Harittu: [12]. Apart from the eponymous Harittu, there is another old frälse farm in the area, Kakkarainen, discussed in [13]. Here's one article about an archeological find from Harittu: [14]. According to [15], offline sources discussing Harittu would be [16], [17] and [18], but I've no access so I am unsure what they contain. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the ward article is also unreferenced. Indeed there is a whole series of unsourced ward, district/neighborhood articles for Turku which all have no sources. Could we have articles? Yes. Should we have this many articles? Not necessarily. WP:NOPAGE is explicit that certain topics are better bundled together. That’s a particularly compelling policy given the zero amount of verification efforts that went into these pages. WP:BURDEN is a thing here too. We shouldn’t be hosting this many unsourced SPINOUTS.4meter4 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are too many articles. The articles Wards of Turku, Districts of Turku, and the articles on the individual wards are largely redundant and currently unsourced. These could be consolidated into a single article, Wards and districts of Turku, which would contain the material now in Districts of Turku. If that were done, the natural target for the redirection would be Wards and districts of Turku. However, in the meantime Uittamo-Skanssi seems like the best redirect target. Once it is merged into a higher-level article, the redirect gets updated without further discussion.

That said, while the wards are purely administrative units and do not offer much content, the development of some of the individual districts is sometimes connected to local history, which provides opportunities for meaningful expansion. I would not recommend redirecting the district articles to a general list if sources are available, though this is not the case for every district. That said, I've changed my "comment" to "keep". Would @~2025-37311-08 be interested in expanding the article? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea. I support that. And if editors were willing to reference that target article it would be a superb alternative to what we have now. Plus editors wouldn't have to be jumping from page to page to page to get an understanding of the city and its various sections. Sometimes bundling makes it a better experience for the reader.4meter4 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion at: Talk:Districts of Turku#Merge discussion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, concur with Bearian on the appropriate course of action here. As for Jähmefyysikko points if at some point enough historical information about Harittu has collected at Turku or related pages then of course the page can be split out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is specific sourced historical information in the article now. In addition to the book "Kylistä kasvoi Turku", the Russian and French Wikipedias cite a book "Turku: Savukeidas Kustannus", while the Finnish Wikipedia cites another 2012 document describing the area. I think this is enough for a WP:GNG pass. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haney Corner, Indiana

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

People are going to want to keep this because it's easy enough to find a couple of people "from" here; I found some too, and they were all farmers, and indeed, what's at Haney Corner now is one, maybe two farmsteads, with another in ruins. But I'm going to insist that three farmsteads at a corner are not a town, even if there was a 4th class post office there in the latter days of that period. Other than those people I came up with nothing. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom. I can find several records in books and papers about people "from" Haney Corner (or Haney's Corner), but nothing at all about the place. These are trivial mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germantown, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

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

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I see some official documents referring to this, but none of them say what it is. I gather in colonial times there was a manor by this name. At present it is an anonymous area in the great along-the-bay sprawl consisting of a marina and a bunch of houses. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe, could you please send a few links to the official documents in question? Thanks, Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Here are a few:

The manor house was a mistake, a juxtaposition with the PA town. It clearly was a place; the question remains, was it a town? Mangoe (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Annapolis, Maryland (perhaps to #Neighborhoods and suburbs?). From what I can tell, Germantown was a "suburb" of Annapolis that got annexed in 1951 (the Capital Gazette ref is an opinion article, but contains some factual statements I believe are reliable).^[1]^[2] It also looks like there was some debate over this annexation going back to at least 1906, according to Newspapers.com clippings.^[3]^[4] Sidenote: there was also some discussion about Germantown wanting a flag station at some point too.^[5] Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

There is no way this could be considered part of Annapolis; it's on the opposite side of the South River, for starters. Its post office now is Edgewater; it's in the Mayo CDP. Mangoe (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice investigative work you two. I am not sure what the solution is based on Mangoe's opinion.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this @Mangoe, you are definitely correct. Perhaps there is another Germantown that did get merged, that is now part of Annapolis? Or maybe I'm too terribly confused here. Regardless, apologies for the bad suggestion here.

Adding another potentially helpful clipping: https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-capital-residents-file-a-protest/185854517/. Staraction (talk | contribs) 09:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be covered in Mayo, Maryland or Edgewater, Maryland?4meter4 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, it actually does look like there were two "Germantown"s in Anne Arundel County for a time. This 1957 topographical map of South River, MD (HTMC, 1964 ed.) has one near / in what is now Annapolis (presumably the neighborhood) and one at the coordinates of what is labeled on the Wikipedia article. Both sites are situated within the Anne Arundel County borders. cc. @4meter4 @Mangoe @Katzrockso Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is a tangle...4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... do we have any information that is specifically identifiable to the one at the coordinates in the Wikipedia article? I wonder if we can tell which Germantown the 1900s stuff was about

Otherwise, I would support deletion because a place being labeled on a map isn't sufficient to support an ATD

@Staraction Katzrockso (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso: I don't think so, outside of the coordinates and the specific definitions of the words unincorporated community. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction most unincorporated communities in the USA have more substantive information about them, that discussion the community as a town/community/village etc and describe more about it. America, Indiana, despite not having existed for quite a long time, was once the political center of that area of Indiana (and indeed never received legal recognition) Katzrockso (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, @Katzrockso. I haven't yet found extensive discussion regarding the Germantown that I am assuming is being referenced in the article, based on the coordinates. I'll keep looking, but in the meantime, I likely would agree with your delete vote. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? People commonly refer to cities as beyond their strict city guidelines, there is a reason people commonly use language like "<city> area". Our article on Edgewater, Maryland states "Edgewater is often considered a suburb of Annapolis" and suburbs that are not within the strict city limits are commonly referred to as part of that city - this is why Metropolitan statistical areas exist for larger cities.

In this case, there is a better solution given that the articles pointed out by 4meter4 exist, but in principle the fact that the strict city limits end at one point does not prohibit coverage of areas outside of the strict city limits. Katzrockso (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name seems to have sparked the name "Germantown Elementary" [19] that has existed for at least 30 years [20], possibly as early as 1922 [21].

Technically, I believe "Germantown" was legally recognized in this law here [22] / [23], as noted above

The area mentioned in this book on the history of Annapolis; [24] as "Homewood-Germantown", as a neighborhood of Annapolis. In a footnote, the book references this plat addition to Germantown [linked above by Mangoe] [25] (note this downloads a .tif file), which is mentioned in a 1969 newspaper article [26] that mentions a McKendree Avenue. This McKendree Avenue is located in Annapolis [27], in the area depicted by Hometown-Germantown in the book about Annapolis.

The man listed as being interviewed in the book, citing the origin of the town/village name, Bernard Gessner, died in 1997. His obituary lists him as "born in the Germantown section of Annapolis" [28].

Further information about "Germantown" (of dubious reliability, but probable accuracy) can be found here [29], on the Germantown-Hometown neigbhorhood website; Prior to the early 1900s, areas west of the historic City center were mostly agricultural, before becoming now-familiar names like Germantown, Homewood and Cedar Park. These communities are now among the older ‘suburbs’ of present-day Annapolis. and It wasn’t until 1951 that Germantown-Homewood became an ‘official’ part of the City. But it was not alone: Eastport, Truxton Heights, Parole, Cedar Park, Tyler Avenue and many other local neighborhoods were also part of that expansive evolution.

So it seems that that coordinates are incorrect (not uncommon and why I never rely on the coordinates) and this is indeed a part of Annapolis nowadays. It appears to have been a separate village that was 'annexed' into Annapolis and turned into a neighborhood, which is a very common occurrence as cities become larger over time. I don't know where the information about the post office comes from, I can't find anything indicating there is a post office in Edgewater, Maryland that was named Germantown or previously located in Germantown.

Cc @4meter4 @Mangoe @Staraction Katzrockso (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Goetzke, Paul (26 July 2023). "The annexation of its suburbs led to the rapid growth of Annapolis". Capital Gazette. Retrieved 28 November 2025.
^ https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ca44add7b049347f9352/amp
^ "Opposed to being annexed". Evening Capital. 17 March 1906. p. 1. Retrieved 28 November 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Germantown forms protective asso". Evening Capital. 18 December 1919. p. 1. Retrieved 28 November 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Germantown wants a flag station". Evening Capital. 26 July 1920. p. 1. Retrieved 28 November 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gomrok

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

Unsourced since creation in 2006. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From Farsi article has more (poorly sourced) information; fa:گمرک (تهران). From machine translation, it appears this is part of District 11 in Tehran#Locations and subdivisions.

On the Farsi Wikipedia, there is this source [30] that states (machine-translated):

A Neighborhood with an Old Bazaar. The name Gomarknabad should be familiar to Tehranis, and many people from other cities have also passed through the Gomark neighborhood. It's a neighborhood in South Tehran, located between Molavi and Qazvin. The Gomark area has several different neighborhoods. If you drive along Kargar Street and head north from the railroad tracks, or head south from Enghelab, the Gomark neighborhood you're looking for is right in front of you. Usually, after hearing the name “Gomark,” the concept of a goods clearance area is what comes to mind. Yes, this is also a customs clearance area. Many trucks and vans come here from various warehouses to unload. On these heavy and semi-heavy vehicles, they load goods that have been brought to Iran from Karachi or Dubai by barge through a thousand hassles and difficulties. The customs district is much longer and more extensive than a few streets that could fit into an urban geography. Beyond the borders, it has a solid customer base of Chinese buyers. And the locals are always on the hunt for cheap, high-quality Chinese goods. So, go ahead and score a great bargain here.

There's more information here [31] that states that the name "Gomrok" was associated with the "notorious sex district". On another page in this book, it was stated that the neighborhood was supposedly set afire. I found another version of the material in that book and it cited this article [32]. Katzrockso (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Balai

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:GNG / WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's listed as a voting district on page 305 here [33] with 1486 voters. It's not clear how we should cover Malaysian geography on Wikipedia but absent a suitable merge/redirect topic, we shouldn't delete this. Katzrockso (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the page on the Malaysian Wikipedia; ms:Kampung Gong Balai (kampung is village) and it's large enough to have a mosque ms:Masjid Kampung Gong Balai. Katzrockso (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, there may be sourcing in other languages or offline but we don't even seem to have a recognition that it is legally recognized which is the very least we would need in order to presume that those sources do exist. Note that the other language wikis have entries but no sigcov unless I'm missing something (that would largely kill the non-english sourcing presumption even if we had legal recognition). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is something being a voting district not legal recognition? It's also on government maps here [34], pages 35 & 42. I found several digitized news articles that mention this town in the context of fishing as well on government websites ([35] p. 2+4).

Here's another government website listing a lot as located in the village [36]. It's also home to a "Gong Balai Health Clinic" [37] (which seems to be under the Ministry of Health of Malaysia somehow here [38]), and an elementary school ([39]). It's used in the official government documents that list the mosques as the address of the mosque ([40], warning this downloads a xlsx file). Government officials talk about how late birth registration is more common in this village [41]

What do you expect to show something is a legally recognized place? Villages are recognized at the state level in Malaysia and the relevant government websites are either inaccessible to me or offline.

@Horse Eye's Back @4meter4 Katzrockso (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that wouldn't count as legal recognition... Have you tried just finding the sigcov? That would solve the issue of presuming its existance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of villages from the Malaysian government [42], and "Kg. Gong Balai" is on line 17268 (Kg is short for kampung, which means village) and the village has village code 110602007.

What counts as "legal recognition" to you? Villages are classified on the state level in Malaysia, and considered a "Kampung" once it is legally recognized.

Malaysian media is scarcely online, let alone coverage about small villages. Hard to find government statistics when the half of the government websites don't open for me. The Malaysian government document archive (https://govdocs.sinarproject.org/) doesn't work, neither do the local government websites for Terrengganu state.

@Horse Eye's Back Katzrockso (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gortloney

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG / WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the article on the area in which it sits: Moylagh, County Meath. As an WP:ATD. In my own WP:BEFORE, I found and added a number of sources which deal with the townland's population and historical/archaeological sites. Granted not in crazy depth (and the population figure for Gortloney townland likely encompasses those houses on the outskirts of Drumone village which span into Gortloney townland). And, while there may not be enough to definitively establish independent notability, I can't personally support outright deletion. A merge/redirect, to the "more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", would be consistent with WP:GEOLAND. Guliolopez (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. Good work.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's good to see that the nominator supports the merge/redirect !vote. We need at least a little more of a quorum here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gadzema

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There appear to be two Gadzemas in Zimbabwe - one is a neighbourhood of Chinhoyi and the other is a mining settlement 10km north of Chegutu. Listed as a place in stories such as [43] [44] [45]. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer For clarity, which one are you suggesting our article should cover?4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mining settlement, because the other is a neighbourhood which would need to pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eastcliff, Johannesburg

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced. A neighborhood inside a city isn't inherently notable or an automatic pass of WP:GEOLAND because the city itself has a page. Per WP:NOPAGE this could also be covered in the article on the city.4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oakdene, Johannesburg. Although Google gives this place separate boundaries from Oakdene and it's a populated place, I don't think it needs its own article. The local news website sometimes treats it separately and other times links it to Oakdene.[46]. An estate agent selling a property in Eastcliff, also links it to Oakdene.[47] The source in the Oakdene article though not official and may not be reliable, also places Eastcliff within Oakdene. Eastcliff looks to be too insignificant to require a mention in the Johannesburg article, so I don't advocate a redirect there. In addition, Eastcliff is not noted as a named suburb in what appears to be an official list, unlike Oakdene.[48]Rupples (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the redirecting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delușorul Mânzului

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

Fails WP:GNG. I see the trail covered in hiking publications but not WP:SIGCOV of the hill itself.4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero Newspapers.com hits (it is a hill, but still) and all of the Google hits are WP:SELFPUB sources, basically hiking blogs and/or WordPress sites. No SIGCOV in any reliable sources, and the article has never cited any sources and is basically original research, since some of the information (the distance from) isn't even in the blogs. HurricaneZeta^C 15:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HurricaneZeta. Fails WP:NGEO easily.

Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Csanyik

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

I found only passing mentions in sources, but nothing with more than a sentence on this valley. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately I found a bunch of blogs in Hungarian that seem to be duplicating the information found on Wikipedia. A detailed one here [49] has a list of sources, and cites the information about this valley to Györffy György I-IV (1963-1998) : Az Árpád- kor történeti földrajza. Katzrockso (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge into Miskolc relevant stuff that has been added since nomination. I have not been able to find any in-depth sources. The above mentioned Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza I. also doesn't have a lot about it, only a short paragraph. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote what's in that work or explain where to find the source text? Katzrockso (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Csenik 1313/339: t-m ... populosam Chenyk! vocatam prope v-m Gewr! (Egri k. o. lt. AB. 5!, F. VIII/6. 30); 1315/339: v-m ... Chenyk vocatam prope eandem Gewr! ... sep. t-m Gewr! a t. Chyenyk (Egri k. o. lt. AB. 5!, F. VIII/6. 35); 1317/318: v. Chenyg (Egri k. o. lt. AF. 50).
E lakott földet [Ákos nb.] Ernei bán fia István adta 1313-ban a diósgyőri ágostonos (pálos) remetéknek. Az 1315-i új adománykor már falu, melynek tartozékai között malom is szerepel (cum t. arabili et inarabili, pratis seu fenetilibus!, silvis et mol-o). Határát Győr felől (?) így írták le: St. pal. 1315/339: ... de supercilio montis Gulbuka! a pt. Or! et desc. ad 1 vallem ... desc. ad aquam Synua! ... ad Zacharispothoka! et per eandem vallem Zachariaspothoka ... ad magnam viam, que ducit in! Dedus ... ad Rakatyas! ... ad Begas tow! ... ad viam, que circuit, montem Gala vocatum et per eandem viam vergit ad Stanfeu et per supercilium eiusdem montis Stan ... ad Chokasku!; ex alia parte Synua ... ad montem ... (I. h. A szóban forgó hn-ek közül fennmaradt: Kneidinger: Diósgyőr térk. 1770 k. OL. Kam. térk. 830. 53. sz.: Rakottyás tó (erdő); 1886/888. térk: Szinva, Csókás, Békató és Gálya forrás). 1317-ben a pálos provinciális megerősíti az adományt. -- Ma hn. Diósgyőrtől ÉNy-ra. 1886/888. térk: Csenik vgy.; Hnt. 56: Csanyikvölgy. (Cs. I. 170.)

(Quoted exactly as written.) Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples here is information on the historical village. Machine translated, it verified the information about 1313-1315 and connects it to the modern place-name at the end. Katzrockso (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Miskolc per WP:ATD now that the article's sourcing has significantly improved (for verifiability but not notability).4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miskolc as an AtD. While there's plenty of mentions, I haven't found anything substantial. Would consider Keep if sources can be found to verify and talk in some detail about the medieval village. Rupples (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dagamela

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be cautious here. It is in fact a village with some coverage here [50] [51](passing mention here [52]), and there is actually quite a bit of coverage about the Chief Dakamela. It's also listed in this document [53] as a grain depot and health center, so it appears to be a more important village (at least in terms of having more developed institutions) than others. I don't believe that the Zimbabwe released census information that went down to the district level, but aggregated municipalities, we should probably merge to Nkayi, Zimbabwe and make a section for listing the villages. Katzrockso (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Algeria-related articles

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

I started a discussion at WP:VPI#Indexes of country-related articles, but with little participation. We have 148 pages in Category:Indexes of topics by country, but some are redirects or subtopics. I have picked (relatively randomly) the largest countries for this AfD to keep it manageable, and because not all criticisms may be equally valid for really small countries with a limited number of articles.

The issue is that these lists are permanently, woefully incomplete, in a random way. Maintaining such lists is nearly impossible: a complete list would duplicate the category tree for that country, while a short, curated list duplicates the outlines which exist for many of these. As it stands, these indexes serve no real purpose.

For example, the alphabetically first one, Algeria: the list includes Algeria at the 2004 Summer Olympics but not the other years. Why? It contains 10 "List of..." pages, but this is only a small fraction of such lists in Category:Algeria-related lists and its subcats.

The same issues happen with all the below country lists. Either deletion, redirection to an outline, or redirection to a category, seem like the best solution.

Also nominated are the following:

Fram (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what a mess, it gets worse and worse. I looked at Index of United Kingdom-related articles where I note that Aberdeen is the first entry, but later we have a "heading" that itself is a link to List of cities in the United Kingdom (which isn't actually a straight list, it's a size-orientated summary of big cities with an intro), and this "heading" then has sub-headings below it, predictably including Aberdeen (again), and further down, we have a link to List of United Kingdom locations which is predictably a truly enormous list-of-lists, where Aberdeen can be found in List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak. Would anyone in their right mind navigate all this lot rather than just doing a Google search for "Aberdeen Wikipedia"? I know some people really love classifying and listing, and I don't want to decry their work, but this all seems totally pointless? Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As indicated, it is unmaintainable. It will never, and can never, be up to date. I think using Categories is a better choice. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hm, can an article be redirected to a Category? —Tamfang (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate Outline of ... article. These indexes are unmaintainable. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SunloungerFrog and my comments at the village pump. Sitting somewhere between categories and outlines, these indices are more useless than either. Toadspike [Talk] 11:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is an online encyclopedia with a search bar and category system. Context-free lists of links with no organization beyond alphabetization do not serve a useful purpose for readers or editors. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that Wikiprojects are more than welcome to maintain a indexed list of pages for whatever maintenance purposes they like, but these are not needed in mainspace. I would recommend deleting or moving other indexes after this. — Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Aren't these superfluous to both categories and outlines? Katzrockso (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete all. I agree with what Reywas92 says. I can't claim to have looked at more than one or two, but, for example, the one for Chile will be useless for anyone searching for articles about Chile related to particular subjects. Athel cb (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For years, I and others have been monitoring all the ancient Egypt-related articles via the related changes, hunting down vandalism or whatsoever. I can't tell the others, but this one I guarantee is quite up to date and maintained. If you decide to delete it, so be it, but I wish there was a backup way to monitor the topic. Lone-078 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Index of Singapore-related articles which is now maintained via a script by @Robertsky. I believe there are some other indexes which are maintained by similar scripts. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like to refer to previous similar mass AFDs. Depending on the state of the particular index, this should be raised individually or at least every single index should have been examined before being mass nominated here. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain the Index of Singapore-related articles and it is fairly up to date. The list is constrained to Singapore through preidentified related categories. I would rather to have this index kept, and have the option to have other indexes to be re-created when there is a way to keep them up to date (I am slowly working on extending my tool for other indexes). The indexes do serve several functions:
1. Discovery of new articles by search engines. Given that we do not have a sitemap.xml active, search engines do not know if there are new articles until much later (unless they are written by autopatrolled editors), and wikilinks in existing articles may not be picked up fast as search engines optimise their crawl frequencies of individual pages based on what they perceived as the time to content changes. i.e. if the existing article is being edited once a month and the new article is only linked in that article, search engines would be aware of the new article only a month or two later when they crawl that existing article next in a month or two (assuming that the search engines have no other ways to know that the new article exists). Search engines also do not pick up new articles that are manually reviewed by NPPers until much later and would require a link from somewhere for the new articles to be picked up after the review. The indexes, when well maintained, are frequently updated, and search engines will naturally crawl the indexes more often. This translates into faster discovery of new articles.
2. As a tool for anti-vandalism and spotting national level content hotspots. Through the related changes functionalities, local editors can monitor articles related to their countries for vandalism and other issues. The articles may not necessarily be in their personal watchlists, but because of the familiarity through proximity effect, the editors would be able to quickly jump in at potential hot topics that are not in their orbit previously.

– robertsky (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per robertsky, I like to add on that I particularly work on monitoring changes on the index for vandalism. Without an equivalent tool, localised vandalism will be much harder to respond to or be picked up. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Singapore article shows the limits of this system quite clearly, as it is one of our longest pages at 400K+ (for a fairly small country). Anti-vandalism is never a good reason to have an article, if a list is needed for anti-vandalism it should be in projectspace. And the Ancient Egypt page is far from complete, e.g. the whole tree of Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction seems to be missing, but also major things like the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty, the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Ancient Egyptian agriculture and so on. So even one that tries to be complete is very far from it, from even a cursory glance. Fram (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to the maintenance of the index which I mentioned in my own comment above, each index is in very different states of maintenance. For the index of Singapore-related articles, it is maintained with occasional reviews (based on categories). If the Ancient Egypt index is far from complete and there are maintainers trying to do their best to do it, like all incomplete lists etc, should we not inform and discuss with the maintainers etc? Just because it is incomplete, do we delete articles and lists? If an index is in bad shape and no editors stepping forward to help to maintain it, I will agree that we should go ahead and delete it. As such, per my comment, a mass AFD might be inappropriate and each nomination in this mass AFD should be assessed individually and not lumped together. ~ JASWE (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I replied to the maintainers? To quote from above in this discussion: "For years, I and others have been monitoring all the ancient Egypt-related articles via the related changes, hunting down vandalism or whatsoever. I can't tell the others, but this one I guarantee is quite up to date and maintained." So it is in bad shape, but the maintainers believe it is "up to date and maintained" and put their trust in it to combat vandalism. Fram (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everything you mentioned above, from agriculture to the pages contained in the category you indicated, was already present in the index, so I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Lone-078 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. @Lone-078, Index of ancient Egypt–related articles is not bundled with this nomination. However, Index of Egypt-related articles and Index of modern Egypt–related articles are.

On the general point about the pages being useful to counter vandalism and other disruptive editing, that being the case, is it not better that they are maintained in project space somewhere? Personally, as a reader wishing to know about, for example, Egypt, a dense list like this would not be my first port of call. That's why I think they do not belong in article space. A redirect in the first instance would preserve history for porting the content elsewhere. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the works in the category tree Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction are not included in that list either (obvious example: Papyrus (comics)). As it isn't even up for deletion, I guess it makes little sense to discuss it any further here though. Fram (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the reasons for the lists. I can't see why indexes are better than categories for those monitoring anti-vandalism. I don't see any strong benefit to helping search engines find a new page more quickly: it's quite deliberate that new articles aren't exposed to search engines until after NPP has seen them, and we shouldn't do things that encourage search engines to find them sooner. Wikipedia-life is not a race; it's better to expose good, solid articles a month late than to expose articles that shouldn't have made it into main-space as soon as they do. Elemimele (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele Technically, the search engines are exposed to the new articles regardless of them being reviewed or not as long as they are first published (they probably ingest EventStream to pick up new articles). The search engines are honoring the noindex flag for non-AP created articles, while indexing AP created articles immediately. Even if the indexes are updated with the links to non-reviewed articles, the search engine will not index the articles in the non-reviewed state. The search engines require encouragement to look for reviewed articles after the review is done because there is no feed (sitemap.xml) for the search engines to look at. By having the links in the index, the search engines will run through them all when they crawl the index next, and will only index the article when the NPP review is done. – robertsky (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - I do have considerable blind faith in Google's ability to find things... Elemimele (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I think you are mixing different responses for different people into your reply, so I am going to address only the Singapore specific ones.

The Singapore article shows the limits of this system quite clearly, as it is one of our longest pages at 400K+ (for a fairly small country). Indeed, which is why one of the plans I have was to split the list into two when the time comes (it has actually). Also, while at 400k, I do acknowledge that there may be still articles not listed, but these would typically be in new category trees that have been created in the last few years and I am not aware of. i.e. Special:Diff/1324221152: most of the new 20+ articles here are as a result of adding the new (to me) sportspeoples categories into the list. Even then, many of the articles (about 600+ articles) in these new categories are already listed in the index beforehand through other Singapore related categories.

Anti-vandalism is one of the many possibilities that the list can be utilised for, but it was not my primary consideration. While the anti-vandalism patrollers have to monitor two lists in the future, it is better than having none. When I started maintaining the index, my interest for the index was to allow anyone who may be interested, no matter how remotely it may seem to be, to see at a glance what articles are there relating to Singapore. This is not possible with the Outline articles where only key articles or sub-lists are there; or Categories, as there is no one flat category available for all Singapore-related articles. In fact, we are encouraged to diffuse large categories!

I recognise that such lists are dynamic and must be actively maintained, otherwise they will quickly be out of date and incomplete, but that's why I am also taking my time to extend my tool so that such lists can be churned out as comprehensively as possible in an efficient manner.

As for the location of the indexes, I am ambivalent of where they will finally be if they are not to be at the mainspace as long as:

actively maintained indexes are not deleted,
if moved across namespaces, the existing titles will redirect to the final page titles.
if deleted due to lack of maintenance or updates, the indexes can be recreated at prescribed new locations, i.e. "Wikipedia:WikiProject CountryBall/Index of related articles", as long as maintenance and update viability can be addressed, and/or redirects can be created at old titles for discovery purposes.

– robertsky (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that if some of these are moved to projectspace, that there will be redirects from the current titles, as we normally don't redirect from mainspace to projectspace. I don't think anyone has any objection to your points 1 (if moved to projectspace) and certainly point 3 (I see no reason why these would not be allowed in projectspace, as long as they are of course not too big; a single page list for the US would be a bad idea). As for the mainspace, Singapore is a borderline case IMO: I excluded very small countries or territories from this AfD because for these a single page with all articles may be feasible and maintainable, but I included Singapore here as I thought it would become too massive a list. It's hard to know where to draw the line in cases like this of course. Fram (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Singapore is included because it would become too massive a list for maintenance, would a split be sufficient then to have the list remain in the mainspace? This is of course comes with a promise that the upcoming script/tool update will account for the split, and making maintenance relatively stress-free and easy for others to work on the index (these are already in the works actually. JASWE has been bugging me to do so so it is no longer a bus factor of one when comes to updating the index). The current workflow that I have takes less than 30 minutes to prepare the category list and for the generation of the index, and another 30 minutes to update into wiki, verify, and adjust if necessary. – robertsky (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Not a notable subject. If anyone wants to maintain an index on wikipedia about its own articles then they should use their own sandbox. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indexes are allowed in the mainspace per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. As for notability, that's a separate matter to argue on. At risk of being seen as braggadocious, would Index of Singapore-related articles be notable, because it has been cited as one of my main efforts on the project in the news? [54], [55].

Please don't make broad statements like maintaining indexes in sandboxes only are allowed (inferred from above), as it is going to invite whataboutism, i.e. "What about Index of branches of science? Aren't those notable? Should it be in a sandbox?". – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that page could easily be renamed List of branches of science (currently a redirect). It's a narrow topic with only one type of article listed, all of which have descriptions, though I think it would be better with some further organization like by the major groups at the top rather than all being alphabetical. Broader indexes with people, places, history, sports, fiction, etc. aren't useful in the mainspace, and pages that lack organization or context (like Index of underwater diving: F–K has) should be discouraged or moved. — Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the corresponding Outline article per SunloungerFrog, such articles can never be adequately maintained due to the sheer volume of content within such topics. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 14:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are currently allowed, and if we can maintain these with a script, they may still serve a purpose, especially as metadata. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per ATD. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not redirect, as they will have no meaningful incoming links, once templates are updated. A few nav templates e.g. Template:Asia related articles index can also be deleted once the articles are gone. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the main usage of these pages is to provide a list to monitor the changes via the related changes link, may be moving them into Wikipedia or Wikipedia/Project namespace would be the best solution?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, such indexes are not a good idea to include in Wikipedia. Feel free to maintain an index in WikiProject space. Geschichte (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the outlines. While I would normally support deletion in this matter, these indices are very large pages with lots of views. I definitely think that there are a considerable amount of external links to these pages. Thus, per WP:CHEAP, these should be redirected so not to break these external links. I would like to delete these articles per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is not very encyclopedic to just have alphabetically sorted pages rather than topically sorted pages. Furthermore, if this AfD is succesful, then I would like this to be added a guideline somewhere, or multiple guidelines, like on NLIST, GNG, INDISCRIMINATE, etc. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect to outlines. Such manually created massive lists are unmanageable and impractical for humans--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I typically favor an ATD when possible but I checked a few of these titles and can't fine an "Outline" for that article subject. For Redirects and Merges, editors advocating this outcome have to identify the target article if they want that to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all With all due respect to the page maintainers, these pages seem like distressingly manual efforts to duplicate Categories and What links here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Incomplete lists which seem to be attempting the jobs of categories and none of the subjects are notable. I don't see redirecting as an ATD is this situation. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Castell-Remlingen

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to verify the content in this article.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a minor county but it certainly existed. See 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in this 1839 book as being a part of Bavaria [56] with population 9,700. Not sure what kind of polity it was at that point in time.

it was a county based on a fairly small town. As you say it seems to have been mediatised. Mccapra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are very confusing, because they seem to suggest that it's a branch of the House of Castell, rather than a geographic location (e.g. [57]).

It seems likely this was a mediatised house at that point in time, but we largely have only primary sources on this subject. Redirect to County of Castell unless someone can sort out this mess Katzrockso (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that a portion was split from Castell-Remlingen too, called Castell-Castell :) Geschichte (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a confusing tangle, and the sourcing isn't great... Hence why I said I couldn't verify our presentation. It doesn't help that the German wikipedia doesn't currently cover this either (not that it is always accurate).4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vernon Station (Western Australia)

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

I don't see this cattle station being notable, sources are either run of the mill news stories or about owners of the station, none providing any real SIGCOV of the station itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources also present in the article (including one of governmental origin). Svartner (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at the sources yourself? One is an advertisement and the rest of the news sources provide trivial mentions as part of routine news reporting.

The government own the station so they aren't an independent source here, with the source in question being just a report that is done for all Western Australian pastoral leases. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Just passes the threshold due to the coverage of the floods and the air crash. Might benefit from some more sources but this looks okay to me. Curly Suix (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions

[1] Goetzke, Paul (26 July 2023). "The annexation of its suburbs led to the rapid growth of Annapolis". Capital Gazette. Retrieved 28 November 2025.

[2] ttps://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ca44add7b049347f9352/amp

[3] "Opposed to being annexed". Evening Capital. 17 March 1906. p. 1. Retrieved 28 November 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[4] "Germantown forms protective asso". Evening Capital. 18 December 1919. p. 1. Retrieved 28 November 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[5] "Germantown wants a flag station". Evening Capital. 26 July 1920. p. 1. Retrieved 28 November 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]