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

Mifflin, Indiana

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

Another case where it appears to have been only a post office. No other info found. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interestingly, there is a sign there that says "Welcome to Mifflin" [1] which was added sometime between 2007 and 2023. The restaurant that likely put it up claim the area is "Still known as Mifflin" [2] and there appears to be an article about Mifflin. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, there is an article from February 2010 from the Clarion News. Newspapers.com access for Wikimedia users seems to be down but here it is.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Knob, Indiana

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

The reference given doesn't pan out per se but elsewhere in the same work it lists the place as a "postal village", which is to say, just a post office. There is nothing significant at the spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riceville, Indiana

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

Indications are that this is a rail point which someone hoped would grow into a town, but which never did. Searching was not helped by Google's insistence on giving me hits about people named Rice and about Riceville, Iowa, but I got nothing solid. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find a passing mention in a history book: [3], and the place appears on USGS maps, but never as more than a couple of houses, which is what it is today. If sources appear I could be persuaded to change to keep, but not with what we have now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Note there is a Riceville in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, making it a lot harder to find relevant info. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temple, Indiana

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

The cited history calls this Temple Station, which is what it looks like. I'm not seeing evidence it ever actually developed into a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- A. Temple seems to have gotten "Temple" platted at least in the 1920s.
- It's on this 1950 census map.
- Post office applications in 1903 and 1933 just reiterate that it was between English and Marengo. One of the PO applicants was A. Temple.
- This history suggests it was on a historic road of pioneer days, and later supported a school and a church.

jengod (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattix Corner, Indiana

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

Bake calls this a "village", but I find no corroborating evidence; indeed, I'm getting nothing but clickbait. Aerials and topos show a crossroads, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a couple of houses near the crossroads, but only around 5 or 6. Maybe it used to be bigger? Bake appears to cite WPA, which from the bibliography is the Works Progress Administration, in either "Indiana: A Guide to the Hoosier State" or "Indiana Writers Files of the Federal Manuscript Project", likely the first. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching inside the first "Mattix" does not appear. The second I can't find. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find nothing to suggest this is anything more than an old crossroads on the Rossville Pike named for the early-settler Mattix family that had a farm nearby. It never had a post office that I can find. jengod (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan, Indiana

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

Searching is unsurprisingly difficult but found nothing to contradict this as a rail point for loading grain. The only thing there now now is a co-op which aerials show has migrated from the north to the south side of the road. By contrast other towns in the area have a street grid, however small. There's none of that here. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are plenty of other sources besides the Internet, such as books and other sources, that may or may not have more info. If we let this article expand a little longer, perhaps more non web sources can be found to expand the page. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. There are no sources beyond those already listed, unless they be produced. We've done a thousand or so of these placenames articles so far, and after sitting around for sixteen years, it has had its chance at "perhaps more sources". This is a classic bad AfD argument. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched through numerous old maps dated between 1878 and 1969 and saw no evidence whatsoever of a settlement at the site. The only thing I could spot on any of them was a structure (perhaps a grain elevator?) marked on this 1969 map near the intersection a couple miles south of Antioch. (The township map doesn't even show that it has a name, though the county-wide locator map identifies the spot as Reagan.) Early property maps show landowners with the surname of Reagan holding much of the farmland around that point, so that presumably is the origin of the locality's name, but I see nothing to show that the spot is/was anything more than a grain storage and loading facility along the railway line. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is plainly false. Reywas92^Talk 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhira

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

I could be wrong, but I am not able to find any evidence this place exists. The coordinates listed don't go to a place with this name. Googling reveals just Wikipedia mirrors and Mari Shah Sakhira, which is a real place but already has a separate Wikipedia article. Article creator was no doubt working in good faith but seems to have had some other Pakistan place articles deleted for this same issue. Here2rewrite (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Pakistan, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The place does seem to exist; in Google Maps, there are at least 2 establishments that use the address. However there are no other significant coverage about the place to merit an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States

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

Scope is vague and due to the nature of the article it attracts unsourced information to be added (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 16:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: major contributor). If the scope is vague, propose a move instead. If it attracts unsourced editing, that is not a reason to delete a page. See WP:BEFORE, Point C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Normal editing can fix the unsourced additions concern since undoing edits and rolling back to revisions are core embedded features to both Wikipedia and its extensions like Twinkle and RedWarn. Lack of will to work on a page is not a reason to delete it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. The best, almost the only, list I can find is The 5 Best North Texas City Nicknames (and Some of the Worst). (Ranker ["The Funniest Negative Nicknames for US Cities"] doesn't count since they rank all sorts of stuff that isn't notable.) Also, universities aren't settlements. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll just take one example I am personally familiar with: "Los Anchorage" for Anchorage, Alaska. Yes, those of us that live in more rural areas use this term dispairingly for people who move to Alaska just to live in an urban nightmare. However the source [4] is just the article's headline, the nickname is not the subject of the article. Seems like most of the sources are of this nature. This is just trivia, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Trivia" about sums it up. Qwirkle (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triáns

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

This page clearly does not satisfy WP:NGEO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — regarding WP:NGEO, although WP:NPLACE does say that populated areas are presumed to be notable, I can find essentially nothing in reliable sources covering, or even really trivially mentioning, Triáns. One solitary mention in a document from 1916. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme 22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, as any look at a map will determine, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how it satisfies WP:GEOLAND?

Note under sources it states: "A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps." GhostOfNoMeme 00:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable... Nothing ambiguous there. It is a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia that recognised settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is presumed to be notable — but as I quoted above, significant coverage cannot solely be maps. Right? For Triáns, there is no WP:SIGCOV outside of maps. Am I misunderstanding the policy? The essay WP:NOTGAZETTEER seems relevant. GhostOfNoMeme 08:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an essay. And that's all it is. It is a fact that we have generally given verified settlements the benefit of the doubt at AfD. Have you actually read what I wrote below? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice to recreation with enough information and sourcing to allow verification. There's no way to tell that it exists and is a settlement with what we have, and it's not AfD's job to write the article. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Proof it exists and is a recognised settlement. Plus the former parish school is listed as being on its territory. Plus an Iron Age fort. Here is its status as a settlement confirmed on the municipality website. Clear verification of its meeting WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sethubavachatram

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

But for its age, this would have been a PROD. Flagged as unsourced since 2014. Fails WP:GEOLAND 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment GMaps does show a village by this name in the correct area, and official sources consistently mention it. That said, I cannot see inside any of them. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: INDIAN VILLAGE DIRECTORY lists Sethubavachatram as registered. In this New Indian Express article, the village is used in illegal spice trading. 2011 census also gives details. Few more reports are also there. Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. A promotional tone used in an article for a notable subject should be fixed editorially. WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to rewriting a page about a topic that meets our notability guidelines. TNT is a relevant argument in a content dispute, but not a reason to use administrative tools. As for WP:SK3, a faulty nomination cannot be used to speedy-close an AfD once a valid deletion argument has been entered. Regardless, an inaccurate assessment of sources vis-à-vis GNG is not the same as "No accurate deletion rationale". SK3 aims to close AfDs with nominations such as, "We don't need a page about a geographer", not to summarily reject poor or lazy assessment of sources. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Flyvbjerg

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

GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Also note that this person is the subject of an extensive promotional campaign of citespam and other articles (see Making Social Science Matter on his book). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive for more info on the socks, including the creator of the biographical article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up the article a bit. Qflib (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Economics, Geography, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edits, I followed up with a few tweaks as well. Qflib (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of David Eppstein and XOR'easter, who has done an excellent rough cut on the worst of the cruft. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5 at least twice over. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tsʼu Kué 196G

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

I couldn't find sources to add to prove it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge? It's on the national map, and it does appear to be claimed by the Smith's Landing First Nation, and that is the entirety of what I could find other than some very minor data. At this point I think it makes the most sense for the list of reserves for this first nation to be converted into a table with data from the official Canadian sites, as there's not really enough on any of them to make a separate article that I can see. Mangoe (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smith's Landing First Nation. A First Nation and its reserve can have two separate articles if there's actual substance that can be said and reliably sourced about them to support separate articles with, but they do not always need to have two separate articles as an automatic matter of course — so until somebody can write something more substantial and better-sourced than "this is a place that exists, the end", a reserve should be retained as a redirect to the nation that inhabits it in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Liking the solution proposed by Mangoe above of creating a unified table of all the Smith's Landing First Nation reserves. What is puzzling is that nine of the ten reserves listed on Smith's Landing First Nation actually can be verified on the Government of Canada website (see the example of Thebathi 196), but not seeing this "196G" there. Also, one of the sources on that page says that the band successfully reclaimed nine reserves, not ten, so was wondering if the tenth somehow has different status. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to add is that if you look at the article history, Tsʼu Kué 196G actually started out with citations like the other nine reserve stubs, but they were removed in 2020 due to failed verification. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Smith's Landing First Nation. It could potentially be expanded, but I don't know enough about the subject to make those additions. Yuchitown (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Smith's Landing First Nation. I don't know why User:Boleyn couldn't find sources. Also, it Googles well enough, yielding authorative sources such as this and this; though that doesn't mean it needs a separate article. Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 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.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab

Milagrosa may refer to:

Places
- a baranggay in Calamba, Laguna
- a baranggay in Carmona, Cavite
- a baranggay in Quezon City

Buildings and structures
- Church of La Milagrosa, a Roman Catholic church in Spain
- Puente La Milagrosa, a bridge in Puerto Rico --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think barangays can even be listed in dab pages unless there is an actual article, or that it is discussed on another article; mere mentions in lists of barangays don't count.

With that being said, Milagrosa in Quezon City is historical for being the first and still only place where a People's Initiative made it to a ballot. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and HueMan1: Are you fine to convert it to a dab instead? See my suggestion above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support disambiguation as above: I don't see enough that would make this substantially notable enough for its own article, and there seem to be many similar places that would be better in a disambiguation page rather than picking one to be the sole redirect target. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng

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

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

I would PROD this but it has been PRODed before, in 2012. GoldRomean (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sub-district of a sub-district, but seems to pass GNG fairly easily if not GEOLAND: [5] [6] [7] Most of the best sources appear to be in Bahasa. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a kelurahan is an official government designation in Indonesia - who knows who’d translated it to an "administrative village", but it's a real unit with a designated office where you go to handle papers and whatnot, listed in Indonesian ID cards as its own item. Juxlos (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure SportingFlyer's sources meet GNG, although they're enough for a couple of sentences. If this does end up on the deletion side, it would be better to redirect to List of administrative villages of Jakarta, which could then be slightly expanded to say eg. "Duri Kosambi, named in reference to a Schleichera plantation which used to exist in the area." CMD (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND, and the area has clear coverage from secondary sources in Indonesian. Not a self-governing part (mostly by virtue of being in Jakarta), but it's official and it's there. Juxlos (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Contents

Geography

Mifflin, Indiana

Pilot Knob, Indiana

Riceville, Indiana

Temple, Indiana

Mattix Corner, Indiana

Reagan, Indiana

Sakhira

List of disparaging nicknames for settlements in the United States

Triáns

Sethubavachatram

Bent Flyvbjerg

Tsʼu Kué 196G

Milagrosa

Duri Kosambi, Cengkareng

Geography-related proposed deletions