Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 7: Line 7:

==Geography==

==Geography==

<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->

<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->

{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caemorgan}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katokhar, Ambedkar Nagar}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katokhar, Ambedkar Nagar}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabney Crossroads, Mississippi}}

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabney Crossroads, Mississippi}}

Revision as of 20:41, 19 May 2024

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Geography

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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caemorgan

Caemorgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no clear notability. Pretzelles (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than a name on an OS map, though. If someone can find some other corroboration I'd be quite happy. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katokhar, Ambedkar Nagar

Katokhar, Ambedkar Nagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found nothing per WP:GEOLAND as no census data and history found. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabney Crossroads, Mississippi

Dabney Crossroads, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this to be a notable location. The only modern coverage I can turn up for this is use of this place as a waypoint or the fact that a USGS quadrangle map was named for this site. Newspapers.com does not catch any coverage of this either except for an appearance in a listing of places served in a county supervisor's district either. Admittedly, the standard methods do not always do a good job of turning up coverage for older extinct places. However, the lack of any mention in Ed Bearss's gigantic trilogy on the Vicksburg campaign suggests this place was either not known by this name or was not significant at the time, as Bearss' work is very detailed in mentioning the minor place names of the area and the Vicksburg campaign raged right through Hinds County. I haven't seen anything that would indicate a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, the quadrangle thing is annoying, and I'm not even sure it contains this "place". Nothing in newspapers, books, or google. Well there is stuff, but it is just repeaters of WP and GNIS.James.folsom (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Shamil Rural District. The page and its editors do have a questionable history. Relisting does not look like a good use of time or effort. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poshtkuh-e Shamil

Poshtkuh-e Shamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally nominated this for PROD with the following justification, which I largely stand by: None of the cited sources clearly indicate a place by this name in Farsi, although there are partial title matches. There is no corresponding page on fa.wiki. This is likely a GNIS ghost or some other error. Sources all relate to Hormozgan province, but there's no useful mention at that page that could justify a redirect.

Now, since opening a PROD for this page with the above reasoning, a new account has repeatedly attempted to refbomb the page with a mountain poorly formatted citations, most of which have the same aforementioned problem of referring to a Poshtkuh (پشتکوه) but not a Poshtkuh-e Shamil (پشتکوه شمیل). However, I do note that at least one of the new sources does refer to "Poshtkuh, Shamil Region" (پشتکوه بخش شمیل) [1]. The level of coverage is still such that I think we fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NGEO--we have basically no verifiable claims about the region to build an article around, and it is not self-evident that this is a distinct, recognized populated place. "Poshtkuh" essentially means "behind the mountain" in Farsi, and could easily be an informal descriptor rather than an actual defined place. Thus, I think that a redirect to Shamil Rural District and extended-confirmed protection of the page is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. The creator was blocked for sockpuppetry so this article was likely to have been an innocent looking geostub intended to get their edit count up. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zesławicki Lagoon

Zesławicki Lagoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small artificial reservoir in suburban Krakow; fails WP:GNG. Both sources in the article are WP:USERGENERATED; a BEFORE search does not unearth any additional qualifying sources. Under WP:NGEO, an artificial infrastructure entity qualifies for notability under GNG and otherwise redirects to the notable feature that prompted its creation. In this case, the river the the lagoon impounds is not notable and thus, without qualifying sources, neither its the lagoon itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 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, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the area surrounding the lagoon is a park, recognized for the bird-watching that can be done there. (See the references.) The parking available there sounds like further evidence of the local council regarding the location as important for recreation (including bird-watching), although perhaps the parking is also used by water department staff. Together with everything else, this adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain Since you mentioned references. I've looked into this; the article was written without any refs on pl wiki, then refs were added but likely a lot of content they have (based on my cursory check) is copied from pl wiki (and the refs are not reliable - blogs or like), so we are dealing with likely Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. Only RS I see is a single sentence in an academic source. I am afraid there is too little to add here to arrive at notability. Side-note: I've nominated this for deletion at pl wiki, maybe someone there will find better sources. pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:06:02:Zalew Zesławicki Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be sensible to relist this again pending the result of that discussion - not that both languages need to have the same result, but sources might be found more easily there. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note there are only keep !votes so far (three of them) on the Polish deletion discussion. Know the logical fallacy that different languages have different standards, but still see no problem with keeping this here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in academic sources or books. It exists, but seems like a Wikidata entry something in Wikivoyage's entry for Kraków(?) would be enough. I can't see how this meets WP:GNG given the weak sources seen in here and on pl wiki - just some mentions in niche pages about local tourist attractions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yatai City

Yatai City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few reliable sources on the city are available, and those that are cover essentially the same information as is present in this section of She Zhijiang's page. Ordinarily I would say that the information should be merged, but none of the unique info on the page is referenced. Zygmeyer (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn, Oregon

Flynn, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Only source is GNIS, and no other information could be found. Satellite images suggest this is just an industrial area on the outskirts of Philomath, OR. Apparently there was once a Flynn Covered Bridge in the area: [8], which might be notable, but nothing about a "community" of Flynn was found, so this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If there was ever a time when this wasn't right on the outskirts of Philomath, it's before topo coverage. And curiously, it doesn't show up as a label until the industrial spur into the lumberyard also appears, and a short siding shows up as well. That rail point seems to be what the label is for, when it first appears. At any rate the lack of a clear characterization of the spot is reason for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no additional sources than presented already. I add that the Bridge was short lived, and while it's plausible that it was at this location, I couldn't prove it.James.folsom (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. This article has transformed significantly from the version nominated for deletion and there is a clear consensus to keep. I thank Shortiefourten for their work expanding it. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres, Washington

Ceres, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A belated prod undeletion: Ceres is a rail station with a general store, the post office was cabinet in the general store [9]. It's also a hill nearby. The area is known as Ceres Hill, so likely needs a move if not deleted.

Original reasoning:Not a notable location. All of the sources mentioned are either trivial mentions or are insufficient for notability (GNIS; Jim Forte). Only reference 6 approaches reliability, and it plainly states that Ceres was just a road-rail crossing with a general store, and the post office was a "pigeon cabinet" in the corner of the store. Satellite images reveal the store and railroad are both gone now, with a single farmhouse nearby. Non-notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. (proposed by WeirdNAnnoyed) James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to rewrite this article as proposed by one editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Me, me, me! I do, I do, I do! I'm out of action this Memorial Day weekend but I can certainly start working on it by Tuesday, using the sourcing already found. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article now has basically been rewritten. Does that influence opinions? An editorial assessment of changes made would help with this closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Forest

Ed Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing refs to consider but perhaps they exist in languages I can't read. JMWt (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think this is just an old mis-translation. Eidskog (described in this article as a town near there) translates roughly as "Ed Forest". Google just returns people of this name, and ChatGPT refers to the "Eidskog forest" in the area instead. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found what seems like a relevant reference: an article in Svensk geografisk årsbok from 1951 [10] (not available digitally). I found a web page that discusses thar article, which confirms that it's the right forest [11]. Andejons (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I can't get that to load but I'm going to assume good faith. As you can see it, would you think it meets the criteria of substantial coverage in a RS? JMWt (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to have a 15-page article devoted to it published in a scholarly annual. I'm not sure if that is usually seen as enough for notability. Andejons (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I don't usually consider references that nobody has read, but that does sound quite long JMWt (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin, Henry County, Indiana

Corwin, Henry County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not return any coverage of a settlement or community, and USGS topo maps do not show a community or even a name at this location. The GNIS entry lists its source as "Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana. Chicago: Baskin, Forster and Company, 1876. An extensively illustrated atlas which includes several U.S. and Indiana thematic and political maps, and maps of counties, towns and cities. The atlas also has many illustrations and portraits, patrons' and business directories, county histories and a U.S. Post Office list." As far as I can tell this was never anything more than a named point on the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forest, Washington

Forest, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reference 2 on the article itself is Meany's place names, and he says that Forest was a post office briefly located at Newaukum prairie. Please remember that post offices back then did not always use the same name as the place where they were, in alot a cases that place didn't exist.The fourth reference (jtenton) is a semi unreliable source that also says it was post office, and the sources used to make that claim are basically also the story of a post office, a school district, and election district named forest. It was also earlier a grange district. As you might imagine such things appear in newspapers but you want find any of those news papers that ever say it was a town. The remaining sources are of no use, and I haven't found anything further than those that actually give any substance on it. James.folsom (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banning Corner, Indiana

Banning Corner, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topo maps show just a few buildings there, indicating this is a named intersection where the Bannings once lived, not a notable community or even "extinct town". Zero hits on newspapers.com or Google Books beyond the gazetteer and Indiana Geographic Names which – surprise! – calls it a locale instead of a populated place. Reywas92Talk 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerta Real (Granada)

Puerta Real (Granada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2014 and does not seem to meet notability criteria per WP:NPLACE. I can't find non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable sources, only mentions of the name in the context of directions and addresses, but never descriptions in detail (not in English, at any rate). The article defines it as a neighbourhood, but it is not an official district I can identify: downtown Granada is called simply Centro (e.g. see Spanish Wiki articles Distrito Centro (Granada) or Distritos de Granada). Even the Spanish version of the article isn't promising: the only somewhat detailed sources are a tour agency website and a blog post, neither of which counts as reliable. This topic could be mentioned in another overview article or a future article about the Centro district, but unlikely to be helpful and verifiable on its own. R Prazeres (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Arguments for keeping or merging are stronger than those for deletion. A discussion about merging with History of human migration or another target can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations

List of explorations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yazman Tehsil. If you disagree with the redirect target, please discuss it on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 15 DNB

Chak 15 DNB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable village. Article is completely unsourced, and there isn't any evidence of notability either. CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added the GPS coordinates from Google Maps. The place does exist (and has buildings), but I can't find any good online sources about the location. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without other sources than a map, it is not an encyclopedic article. Looking at the category, there is no precedent to create individual articles about the chaks in the district. If anything, they could be covered in a list. Geschichte (talk) 03:58, 27 May 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, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Bahawalpur as an ATD. Only one of the villages in this category has sources, so a separate list seems inappropriate. Better to redirect them each to the main article until the subjects draw sourcing requiring their expansion. BusterD (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have boldly redirected two (both wholly unsourced) of the four village articles in the category as I've asserted above. I have left Channan Pir alone because it seems to have some sourcing. In the event this page is deleted, I propose to redirect the pagespace as I've suggested above. BusterD (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone concerned these redirects are not mentioned in Bahawalpur? ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in the city of Bahawalpur; it's in Yazman Tehsil (where it is mentioned) in Bahawalpur district. A redirect to the tehsil would be appropriate. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, Indiana

Germany, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another spot back-entered to the topos from that 1870s atlas; Baker is really the only source besides that, which hasn't proven good enough. I tried looking for this in Baird's history of the county, but there are over a thousand occurrences of the word, so that was hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Kowloon Tsai. Star Mississippi 01:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Road, Hong Kong


College Road, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previously declined for prod. Rationale is a very simple case of failing WP:INHERITED. The specific application of this policy is also noted at WP:NROAD BrigadierG (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

●Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Hong Kong. Skynxnex (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Delete, short road failing WP:MILL. Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Delete A road that does not satisfy any notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says: 
Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.
  Sources

(一)Selection of two sources:

(一)"書院道精英地段" [Elite area of College Road]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2012-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-05-12. Retrieved 2024-05-12.
The article notes: "九龍塘區的豪宅內街以寧靜見稱，書院道同樣具備此項特色，其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，兩座物業合共提供約48個單位，"
 From Google Translate: "The inner streets of luxury houses in Kowloon Tong District are famous for their tranquility. College Road also has this feature. Situated at the beginning of the street, Sheng Feng Yuan is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old and has two properties. A total of about 48 units are provided,"
 The article notes: "其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道︵College Road︶，盡佔名校網優勢，而書院道豪宅的入場費則由千萬餘以至逾半億元俱備。書院道鄰近喇沙利道，兩條豪宅街道的命名均源自區內名校之一的喇沙書院。"
 From Google Translate: "Among them, College Road is within walking distance of many famous schools, taking advantage of the network of famous schools. The admission fee for luxury houses on College Road ranges from more than 10 million to more than 500 million yuan. College Road is adjacent to La Salle Road. The two luxury streets are named after La Salle College, one of the famous schools in the area."
 The article notes: "書院道除了四周環境清幽恬靜外，最吸引買家之處，是優質學府選擇眾多，對於有意讓子女入讀名校的家長，吸引力自然特別高。至於在該街道一帶的名校除喇沙書院外，尚有瑪利諾修院學校、拔萃小學及黃笏南中學等。"
 From Google Translate: "In addition to the quiet and peaceful surroundings, College Road is most attractive to buyers because of its wide selection of high-quality schools. It is particularly attractive to parents who intend to enroll their children in prestigious schools. As for the famous schools in this street area, in addition to La Salle College, there are also Maryknoll Convent School, Diocesan Primary School and Wong Wat South Secondary School."
(二)"書院道匯聚黃金屋" [Collection of Golden Houses on College Road]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2012-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
The article notes: "九龍塘不但具備傳統豪宅區的魅力，更吸引之處是坐擁九龍名校網，其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道︵College Road︶，尤其凸顯名校網優勢，老牌豪宅及豪宅新貴散落於寧靜的街道上，為講求實用的用家與愛好新廈的豪客提供不同選擇。"
 From Google Translate: "Kowloon Tong not only has the charm of a traditional luxury area, but what is even more attractive is that it is located in the prestigious Kowloon School Network. College Road (College Road), which is within walking distance of many famous schools, particularly highlights the advantages of the prestigious school network. Old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes are scattered here. The quiet street provides different options for practical users and high-end buyers who like new buildings."
 The article notes: "其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，..."
 From Google Translate: "Among them, Sheng Feng Yuan, located at the end of the street, is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old. ..."
 The article notes: "書院道另一個老牌屋苑為博文閣，坐落街道的中段，由於位於內街之中，加上面向喇沙書院的大球場，環境清幽，視野亦較開揚。"
 From Google Translate: "Another well-established housing estate on College Road is Bowen Court, located in the middle of the street. Because it is located in an inner street and faces the stadium of La Salle College, it has a quiet environment and a relatively open view."
 The article notes: "除了老牌豪宅外，書院道近年有一個矚目的新一代豪宅落成，乃由興勝創建發展的EI8HT COLLEGE。"
 From Google Translate: "In addition to the old luxury houses, a new generation of luxury houses has been completed on College Road in recent years, which is EI8HT COLLEGE founded and developed by Xingsheng."

(二)Additional sources:

(一)"九龍塘樂苑 雅緻裝潢闊露台" [Kowloon Tong Lok Garden Elegantly decorated wide terrace]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-08-30. p. D5.
The article notes: "位於九龍塘的書院道，屬於內街，靜處一隅，由於街道比較短，因此供應的豪宅僅約10個左右。中原豪宅Stately Home九龍豪宅副區域聯席董事何維進稱，書院道的豪宅樓齡十分參差，其中最新的書院道8號於2011年入夥，而最舊的一批，樓齡逾50年。"
 From Google Translate: "Located on College Road in Kowloon Tong, it is an inner street and is located in a quiet corner. Since the street is relatively short, there are only about 10 luxury homes available. Ho Wei-jin, deputy regional co-director of Stately Home Kowloon luxury homes, said that the age of the luxury homes on College Road is very different. The newest one, No. 8 College Road, was occupied in 2011, while the oldest ones are more than 50 years old."
 The article notes: "由於鄰近九龍城，位處名校網，故書院道除家長客、低調廠家外，均屬用家，放盤有限交投不多。 最新一宗成交於4月份錄得，為書院道8號中層，實用面積1,758平方呎，建築面積2,446平方呎，為屋苑最後一間餘貨，以5,190萬元成交。"
 From Google Translate: "As it is close to Kowloon City and is located in a prestigious school network, College Road is owned by users except for parents and low-key manufacturers. The listings are limited and there is not much transaction. The latest transaction was recorded in April. It is a middle-floor building at No. 8 College Road, with a salable area of ​​1,758 square feet and a built-up area of ​​2,446 square feet. It is the last remaining unit in the housing estate and was sold for HK$51.9 million."
(二)"香港8號" [Hong Kong No. 8]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2011-11-14. p. B3.
The article notes: "書院道因鄰近的喇沙書院而得名，現時書院道8號為新盤Eight College，由興勝創建︵896︶發展，屬於香港六大建築集團之一，估計發展商命名時取8號的 諧音﹁發﹂，著重其﹁意頭﹂。 該樓盤毗鄰九龍塘火車站，交通便捷，並鄰近校網，包括香港城巿大學、香港浸會大學、喇沙書院、拔萃小學，以及耀中國際小學∕幼兒園。"
 From Google Translate: "College Road is named after the nearby La Salle College. Currently, No. 8 College Road is the new Eight College, developed by Xingsheng Construction (896), which is one of the six major construction groups in Hong Kong. It is estimated that the developer took No. 8 when naming it. It is homophonic to "fa", emphasizing its "meaning". The property is adjacent to the Kowloon Tong Railway Station, with convenient transportation, and is close to school networks, including City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, La Salle College, Diocesan Primary School, and Yew Chung International Primary School/Kindergarten."
(三)"九龍塘明麗園中層 環境清幽" [Ming Lai Garden, Kowloon Tong, middle floor, quiet environment]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-11-01. p. D19.
The article notes: "九龍塘書院道，是傳統豪宅物業集中地，該地段以路闊車流量少，環境清幽見稱，放盤向來罕有 ，其中明麗園中層單位，連車位叫價2,500萬元。"
 From Google Translate: "College Road, Kowloon Tong, is where traditional luxury properties are concentrated. The area is famous for its wide road, low traffic volume, and quiet environment. It has always been rare to find a listing. Among them, the mid-rise unit in Ming Lai Garden, including a parking space, is priced at NT$25 million."
(四)Ng, Chi-fai 伍志輝 (2015-06-20).﹃靚盤巡禮‥九龍塘明麗園　 裝修新淨　環境清幽﹄[Tour of beautiful properties: Kowloon Tong Ming Lai Garden, newly renovated and clean, with a quiet environment]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. B4.
The article notes: "九龍塘書院道附近名校多，行車路面寬闊，車流量不高，環境清幽，同時享有鄰近九龍城的方便購物地利，沿路新舊物業都有一定捧場客。 明麗園座落書院道近衙前圍道方向，屬區內老牌大宅之一，盤源向來不多，"
 From Google Translate: "There are many famous schools near College Road in Kowloon Tong. The road surface is wide, the traffic volume is not high, and the environment is quiet. It also enjoys the convenient shopping location near Kowloon City. New and old properties along the road have a certain number of fans. Ming Lai Garden is located on College Road near Nga Tsing Wai Road. It is one of the old-style mansions in the area. There are not many houses in the area."
(五)"書院道8號連平台 裝潢雅緻" [No. 8, College Road, with terrace, elegant decoration]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-04-17. p. D5.
The article notes: "九龍塘書院道街道比較短，故此提供的豪宅物業不多，樓齡一般由37至54年不等。 ... 而書院道8號，屬目前該處樓齡最新的物業，僅4年樓"
 From Google Translate: "The street of College Road in Kowloon Tong is relatively short, so there are not many luxury properties available. The age of the buildings generally ranges from 37 to 54 years. ... No. 8 College Road is currently the newest property there, being only 4 years old."
(六)"書院道樂苑低層 特高樓底" [Low floor, extra high floor, Dao Lok Court, College]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-12-20. p. D7.
The article notes: "九龍塘書院道可供二手轉售的屋苑，除勝豐園外，大部分均在10層以下‥至於樓齡方面，除書院道8號於11年入夥外，餘下多已超過40年。"
 From Google Translate: "Most of the housing estates available for second-hand resale in College Road, Kowloon Tong, with the exception of Sing Fung Garden, are below 10 storeys. As for the age of the buildings, except for No. 8 College Road, which was occupied in 11 years, most of the remaining housing estates are over 40 years old."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow College Road, Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 書院道; simplified Chinese: 书院道) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead! Talk! 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Comment. I don't see what's significant in the sources provided. It's a road with buildings in it. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●The sources allow College Road, Hong Kong, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". The sources discuss the road's namesake, the luxury housing estates on the road, how the prestigious schools in the area affect the prices of houses on the road, how parents and manufacturers are the primary owners of the road's units or property, and the road's attributes (wide, short, quiet, and low traffic volume). A non-notable road would not receive this depth of discussion in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Delete My problem with the sources presented is that they're all articles on property, not articles on the road itself, which is a short residential street. A proper article on a road - looking at London as an example - will have details on history, naming, events which occurred there, which the sources don't specifically cover. I don't think any of the additional sources count, and I'd like to see an additional source specifically written on the road before I think this would meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●The Sun article is titled "Elite area of College Road" and extensively discusses the road's background and attributes. It is not an article focused on the properties on the road.
The Oriental Daily article is titled "Collection of Golden Houses on College Road". The article's thesis is that "the road has old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes scattered throughout", and the article backs up this statement by describing the various properties that dot the road. Significant coverage of what is on the road is significant coverage of the road. The article provides further context by noting that the road is close to prestigious schools and that it is a quiet, inner street.
 The sources do discuss why College Road is named College Road (its name was inspired by the nearby La Salle College). There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for the sources to discuss "events that occurred there". College Road's notability is not derived from events that occurred there. College Road's notability is derived from being dotted with luxury properties from its proximity to prestigious schools. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Comment: College Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways. If the consensus is that the road is not notable, the article still should not be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be merged to Kowloon Tsai, the area the road is in.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Merge with Kowloon Tsai: where this content would be relevant and verifiable, while not requiring independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Merge as suggested by OwenX. While I'm a fan of WP:50k, I also understand that not everyone ascribes. A merge is a more reasonable outcome and compromise than outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a rough consensus against keep, but not yet a consensus between merging and deletion. Further arguments in favor of keep that may shift this emerging consensus are of course also still welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Oppose, per Cunard. 203.145.95.251 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●MergetoKowloon Tsai. I appreciate the sources located by @Cunard and the text is much better than it was. However the road itself isn't claimed to be that notable or of historical import, just a desirable place to live near a famous school. As an example Sassoon Road doesn't get its own page but rather sits within Victor Sassoon. Nor does Mount Davis Road, whereas Rednaxela Terrace does because there's something interesting about its naming. Oblivy (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
●Regarding Sassoon Road, I supported a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sassoon Road because I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about it.
Neither Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways nor Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline require a road to "claimed to be that notable or of historical import". The guidelines only require the subject to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, which this road has. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time. BD2412 T 02:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora, Washington

Cora, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a declined PROD. The third source (forte) is just a list of post offices, and doesn't provide proof of population center since many post offices were in rural areas, and had names that weren't always the same as the place. GNIS (source 1) is unreliable for classification of towns. The second source provides 3 refs for this "town" [19] [20] [21]. Those sources don't mention a town of Cora, but a post office called Cora. Further research shows that the Cora post office serviced the Upper Big Bottom area of Lewis county [22](see pg 253). A newspaper article from 2002 further stated that it was a post office (look down toward the bottom of the first column) [23] James.folsom (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Looking at google maps, there is still quite a few houses located at the location, so it would be considered an "unincorporated community", it is also part of the "Mary’s Corner to Upper Naches Valley" Tour.[1] There is also a bridge a the location named Cora Bridge. (link to view bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cora+Bridge/@46.5348379,-121.7968308,748m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x5496da37cca18657:0xbecd0da45ab1a054!8m2!3d46.5348342!4d-121.7942559!16s%2Fg%2F1tx4p20y?entry=ttu) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Revisiting Washington — Cora". revisitwa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Both sides bring up valid arguments. This type of discussion is probably better suited for an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or similar project page, with broader participation. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,
ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).
    Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct issues here.
  1. On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
  2. On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).
Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)
    What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[24] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.
    Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[25] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [26] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.
The explanation given by the ONS is:
"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."
Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.
The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.
The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.
Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
    • Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
    • For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [27] and [28] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
    • The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [29] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
    • If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
    • The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, Indiana

Wilson, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have a puzzle. There are two data implying that this a rail point. First, the label starts out right next to the tracks before drifting south on more recent maps, towards a string of houses on Rt. 60. Second, GMaps informs us that the name of the road that crosses the tracks at this point is named "Wilson Switch Rd." Against this I have, well, nothing, because searching is pretty much hopeless. The question is whether that string of houses is now known as Wilson or not, and here I draw a blank. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one, partly because there seem to be multiple names associated with the same location. A 1908 map identifies the settlement as "Dallas", while others like this plat map show it as "Wilson". (An 1875 map gives it as "Wilson Station" and notes an accompanying mill.) When time permits I'll aim to check the local histories in more detail, but the fact that it's been consistently present on area maps for the last 150 years suggests it was at one point an actual settlement, so for now I think it's best to keep it. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searching for just Wilson got me nowhere, so I tried Wilson Switch, and I got some interesting results. A 1973 story about sales tax called Wilson Switch a community of 300, but this 1991 story about the local landfill just refers to the locals as "Wilson Switch Road residents", as do later stories about landfill projects. Earlier mentions of Wilson Switch were mostly about car accidents or railway incidents in the area, which doesn't clarify much. Wilson is still on the latest Indiana state highway map, though I don't know how thorough Indiana is about vetting small communities. Not sure which way I lean on this one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can still sleep at night if this is deleted. It's Rail station on the C., I. & L. (Monon) Railway [30], this same source explains that the post office was called Dallas. Lest we not forgot that old post offices were one word names, and were not required to share a name with their location. Huwmanbeing's observation that it is variously known as Dallas, Wilson's switch, and Wilson suggests it doesn't have a strong identity and that people were just referring to the landmarks as a way of being clear about locations. That book I cite above would use the place as a reference if it actually existed. Google snippets from this source [31] states the area around the switch was known as Dallas, and later Wilson, and is an "Unplatted village". I believe that source is just assuming that the place was called Dallas because of the post office at or near the train station. The name Wilson is almost certainly taken from the station, and post office was probably just that. The local paper only has mentions of for about 20 or so years starting 1942. Just life activities of people living near it. The satellite imagery would be very different if some sort population center had existed there in the twentieth century. Be careful researching it, it's not the only rail infrastructure with this name.James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify.‎. Owen× ☎ 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

Battle of Ajmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I agree, I'm seeing more and more articles written on little-known or little-documented battles fought in Central and South Asia. Many of them end up being disucussed here in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Draftify The sources do actually have SIGCOV around this battle, although it's not well formatted but could be fixed. I think the author has cited the different volume of History and Culture of the Indian People therefore we find nothing about this event in that volume, but after my findings in its preceding 5th volume, there is a significant coverage:

"In A.D. 1195-6 the Mher tribes of Ajmer combined with the Chalukyas to expel the Turks from Rajputana. Aibak had to rush to the help of the Turkish governor of Ajmer. Finding the Mhers camping near Ajmer he engaged them in a battle, but when the enemy were reinforced by the Chalukya ruler’s army, Aibak was forced to withdraw into". I guess these two sources should be enough, if not then draftify it, so that the author of the page could improve it by adding some more sources. Also the source from Thapar should be removed. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: The page creator as a new user should receive our support if there's reason to believe sourcing could be found as described by User:Based Kashmiri. Page creator attempted themselves to move this to draft during this discussion but was reverted appropriately for procedural reasons. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 23 May 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.

Geography-related proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography&oldid=1224682374"