Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:

Purge page cache

watch

Geography

Gallatin National Forest

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

I propose merging to Custer-Gallatin National Forest because the forests have been combined since 2014

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Geography, United States of America, and Montana. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Asbury, Stokes County, North Carolina

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

I believe this article fails WP:NPLACE. It is not legally recognized, and I can find no mention of this unincorporated community in news articles or other reliable sources. When searching for information on this community on the Stokes County, NC website, nothing about the community is returned. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Withdrawn by nominator - Thank you very much to @Milowent: for tracking down sources for this article. I thought I did a reasonably good WP:BEFORE search, so I am thankful for your diligence in finding quite a few sources I missed. With these sources added, I believe the article is able to demonstrate notability for this community. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related AfD discussions. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Chibabo, Angola

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

Doesn't appear on any map I checked based on the coordinates for Chibabo. Not showing up in the Angolan census or on citypopulation.de. Satellite view of the area around the coordinates shows some fenced-in land but otherwise minimal development. If a village does exist here, it doesn't appear to have anything significant about it. Local Internet User (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Angola. Local Internet User (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Did the nominator search in Portuguese? If yes, and nothing was found, I'd go delete HerrHeulsuse (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Per nom. This seems like a hoax An editor from Mars (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

El Mamghar

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

I propose merging El Mamghar into Nouamghar because these names refer to the same place, which is the latter. Per the UK Government's Toponymic factfile (page 9), El Mamghar is a variation of the name Nouamghar. The information here can easily be incorporated into the target article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mauritania-related AfD discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Doesn't really need to go through a formal process, AFD is swamped as it is. Just let me know and merge/redirect it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

List of Mexican states by poverty rate

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

I propose merging to Poverty in Mexico because of the reasons explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican states by population, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican states by homicides, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican states by unemployment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican states by life expectancy. This is because of WP:OVERLAP/WP:DUP which leads to WP:NOPAGE, and WP:SHORTTEXT HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Lists, and Mexico. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge – While the nomination is just a bunch of random links, the page is literally just a table and two images. Easy merge candidate. FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge: Reliably-sourced table would be useful at Poverty in Mexico. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Elbert, Polk County, Texas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just four sentences long. A BEFORE search failed to find any other sources. As an unincorporated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - I was not able to locate any sources supporting this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - FYI - Texas has hundreds of these towns. See nav box at bottom. Do we then eliminate all of Texas as soon as each is listed? Perhaps there might be something better. How about other states? — Maile (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The goalposts of what makes a settlement "notable" keep moving, but I generally look for proof that a place ever had a population (rather than just being a crossroads with a post office). Magnolia677 (talk) 15:32, 5 :*:August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Ghost towns in the United States ...A lot of similar ones — Maile (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Whether or not we have articles on those other former towns is outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about whether this specific locality meets the general notability guideline. Do you have any evidence that it does? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Ashby, Houston County, Texas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search failed to find any further sources. As an unincorporated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Curry, Milam County, Texas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds only a single trivial mention. As an unincorporated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Neuse Store, Texas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds only a single mention with three more sentences. As an unincorpoated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Kirk, Bexar County, Texas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds only a handful of trivial mentions about the railroad junction (example) and nothing about the community. As an unincorpoated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Antioch, Van Zandt County, Texas

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The only current source is just three sentences long. A BEFORE search finds mostly articles about nearby Antioch, Henderson County, Texas, and only a handful of trivial mentions (example). As an unincorpoated place, this does not have presumption of notability per WP:NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only provided source does support everything in the article now, but I don't think it is enough to show notability. There might be more informtion in the actual source cited in the included reference (Mary E. Valandingham, Early Scholastic Records for Van Zandt County (Center, Texas, 1968)), but I doubt there will be much. Another independent source should be found, which I cannot find. Ajheindel (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

South Waterhen Lake, Saskatchewan

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

I do not believe South Waterhen Lake meets WP:GEOLAND OR WP:GNG. The one source is now a dead link. I remember what it said, though. It was simply a list of places in the Rural Municipality of Meadow Lake No. 588 with coordinates. There was no prose or further information. I thought about merging / redirecting to RM of Meadow Lake No. 588 but I am not even sure South Waterhen Lake even existed. Looking at the map of where the coordinates take you, it is in the middle of the forest near lakes and a river with no road or rail access past or present. South Waterhen Lake is not on CGNDB. I tried just "Waterhen Lake" at CGNDB too and it came up empty. Masterhatch (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Not sure what is meant by "no road or rail access" but for the love of the great spaghetti monster, I hope you're not using Google Maps or Google Satellite imagery to confirm whether or not a place or road to it exists. Google maps is usually out of date and often just plain wrong, especially in rural areas. Sesame honey tart 02:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I was unable to find it in Internet searches. So, using the coordinates in the article (which were from the now dead link), I went to the spot in Google maps hoping to find something. I found nothing at all. Yes, I know the existence or absence of roads or rails on google maps does not prove or disprove that it was there, but if i can find an abandoned railway or something in the area, it can often lead to clues about communities now gone which could lead me to the right places to find sources. There is an Indian reserve (Waterhen 130) on the southern shore of Waterhen Lake (Saskatchewan). At one point, I was looking for sources that might connect the two. You know, maybe South Waterhen Lake was part of the reserve. I found nothing. Masterhatch (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I've had that same issue. Enough info to confirm existence, not enough to confirm *where*. Merge seems appropriate, but I don't know enough about Saskatchewan to have an opinion on merge destination Sesame honey tart 17:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I found this Meadowlake bylaw excluding "South Waterhen Lake" from fire bans. Do you think it's real? Sesame honey tart 02:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC) It's listed on this profit sharing thingamabob too. Maybe the coordinates are off, but you can find mentions of it in various Saskatchewan govt docs. Found one accounting firm advertising there too. Sesame honey tart 02:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Maybe the answer is a redirect to Rural Municipality of Meadow Lake No. 588 instead of delete. This place "seems" to exist but pinning anything concrete down (such as, Where is it!) is hard. Other small communities get redirected to the county or the RM or the parent district, such as South Wellington, British Columbia and Sounding Lake, Alberta. What do other editors think about turning it into a redirect as an option? Masterhatch (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Makes sense to me too. Sesame honey tart 18:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Prairie View, Boone County, Illinois

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

As best I can determine, this is the name of the west end of a large rail yard. THe area was for a long time empty, but is now in the midst of a huge industrial park. But I can find no evidence that anyone lived here or any other sign of a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related AfD discussions. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Chak 21 SB

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

Fails GNG. No significant coverage from pakistan sources and english sources, just a bunch of unreliable websites mentioning the article. SVcode(Talk) 18:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
comment This has the same dubious coordinates as Chak 71 NB, inside Kot Momin. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

MaViGun

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations cover statements by Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and other YSR Congress Party leaders promoting MaViGun as a political proposal and election issue, the same is mentioned in this article as well. The sources are reliable but according to me they provide little independent, in depth coverage of MaViGun as a standalone subject. Per WP:NOTNEWS, coverage of current political developments does not by itself establish notability. Any verifiable content about the proposal can be covered in Andhra Pradesh capital issue or YSR Congress Party articles. Wikipicked (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep – I am the article creator. The nomination understates the independent secondary coverage available. MaViGun has received direct and non-trivial coverage over several months from multiple editorially independent outlets. Hindustan Times reports not only party statements but internal party reactions, opposition responses and an independent political analyst's assessment. India Today contains dedicated sections explaining why MaViGun was proposed and analysing the competing MaViGun–Amaravati positions. ThePrint examines the political, governance and investor consequences and includes independent trade-body commentary. The Federal directly compares MaViGun with the Integrated Capital Region and discusses financing, land and political implications. This constitutes more than trivial mention and supports WP:GNG; significant coverage does not require the topic to be the sole subject of every source. WP:NOTNEWS cautions against relying solely on routine announcements, but it does not exclude a topic that has received repeated, contextual and analytical coverage rather than a single burst of reporting. The article should therefore be kept and improved with these sources. If consensus considers a standalone article premature, merging or redirecting it to the Andhra Pradesh capital issue would be preferable to outright deletion. Karthik 5678 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The sources still don't demonstrate significant independent coverage per WP:GNG.They report political statements, about their future campaign, and reactions over the proposal, nothing that clears significant coverage on the subject MaViGun.

And I feel that the sources don't support the level of analytical treatment that you're saying. According to me, much of the coverage appears to come from the ongoing Andhra Pradesh capital debate and Jagan's election messaging. Politicians regularly put forward policy proposals and campaign themes, but that alone does not make each proposal independently notable. What matters here is whether "MaViGun" has received significant independent coverage under WP:GNG. Over merging, redirecting or deleting, consensus will decide that. I'm still towards redirecting or merging as mentioned in my nom. Wikipicked (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for clarifying. I agree that routine reports repeating political announcements would not, by themselves, satisfy WP:GNG. My position rests principally on the depth of the independent treatment in the India Today and The Federal reports, rather than on the total number of reports. India Today devotes separate sections to why MaViGun is being proposed and to the MaViGun–Amaravati debate, discussing its political distinctiveness from the earlier three-capital proposal, the competing development and cost arguments, regional political considerations, and the consequences of repeated capital-policy changes for farmers, investors and administration. The Federal separately compares MaViGun with the government's Integrated Capital Region and discusses financing pressure, contractor confidence, land values and the alleged influence of MaViGun on the government's evolving capital-region framing. These are direct and detailed treatments of the proposal, not merely passing mentions or reproductions of an announcement. Under WP:SIGCOV, coverage need not make MaViGun the exclusive subject of the entire publication. I have therefore incorporated the strongest independent material into the article and continue to believe that the available sourcing supports retention as a standalone article, while recognising that the closer will determine whether Keep or Merge best reflects the evidence. Karthik 5678 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Oklahoma Lake

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

The lake fails WP:GNG. The article presents no indication of notability. The only source listed is a primary source. It also seems promotional in nature, as evidenced by the fact that it was created by an SPA. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related AfD discussions. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Souri

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

I can't find any evidence that this place exists. It doesn't appear in Bing Maps, Google Maps, or Wikimapia, and its wikidata coordinates (10.844096, 2.828979) place it within the town of Gogounou. It also doesn't show up in census data for the Alibori Department, unlike other towns. I suspect it may have arisen as a typo for the nearby town of Sori, Benin, or possibly "Souru", which appears in northeastern Kandi commune in this UN map.

No other wiki pages reference this town except for the disambiguation page for Sori. The page's history seems to show that there's never been any other useful information at any point to help find evidence of this town's existence. Local Internet User (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Benin. Local Internet User (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Reedy Creek Dam

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

Confused this dam with the other one in New South Wales which at least is mentioned in government reports and in the media. I should not have de-prodded. No coverage found via the Internet Archive, Google Books, and Elsevier. Spurious matches via EBSCO. Does not meet WP:GNG and appears not to meet WP:GEOLAND either. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: I looked for solid coverage but came up short. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete I tried to find reliable sources for this article which has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011. I was unable to locate any sources to demonstrate notability - all I came across was a real estate listing for the adjacent property that listed it by a different name, which was why I originally PRODded the article. Dfadden (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. In real life I think Reedy Creek Dam should have all the geolocation data removed from it and then become a redirect to Centennial Coal, because the NSW is more notable than the one in Queensland. But maybe it's cleaner to delete it first. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Kokkiliyar River

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

Not sure if this actually exist. GSearch didn't show anything except Grok. I also looked at Palni Hills in GMaps but I can't find the exact river this is pointing to. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Searched for sources under this and variant names and couldn't find anything. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, not finding anything either. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Created by an editor who is retired, so we can't really know their motivation or spelling abilities. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Edgewood, Boone County, Illinois

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

Go far enough back and this is a passing siding on a now-gone C&NW line. It disappears from the tops for a while, but then of course in 2012 they put it back. But it's just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Clearly just a rail point or possibly a flag stop on the interurban railroad that disappeared sometime between 1918 and 1953. Nothing found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - A testament to my general knowledge and experience, I have actually been to this place! It's very close to Cherry Vale Mall in Cherry Valley. There are many obscure villages and places on Wikipedia, but they (and this article) meets notability per WP:NSETTLEMENT. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Beaverton Crossroads, Illinois

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

Nothing here except a school complex built in the area at some point. Searching produced nothing but fed gazetteers and similar DB entries. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: It does not meet Wiki's notability protocol. Alazar202 (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Lillestrom, Saskatchewan

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

It was suggested that this be discussed, and so here we are. The CGNDB describes this as a "locality", so that doesn't get us very far; the cited passage in the placenames book doesn't agree with the text of the article. It's not even clear that it's talking about the same place, given that there's no sign that there was ever a rail line through this area. A "locality" absolutely fails to pass WP:GEOLAND, so we need something here to convince us that the lack of a settlement on GMaps is what should rule here. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as the one who proposed discussing this place. This one isn't as much of a slam-dunk as Orland, Saskatchewan, due to the place-names book. But that by itself isn't enough and I can't find anything else. If this really was a settled place once then there should be more out there, and I'm open to changing my mind if sources can be found. Also, this is the place in the book. The remains of the rail line are visible cutting through the marshy area to the west of the coordinates, in the satellite photos. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
OK, now I see the old RR grade. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Seems rather pointy. Has an entry in the CGNDB, appears in at least one book, many other hits on Google Books, passes NPLACE easily. MediaKyle (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Simply appearing in an national gazetteer is not enough: even ignoring classification errors (and we don't have enough experience with the CGNDB to assess that), this isn't classified as a settlement there, so it's good for the name and location, and that's it. These listing include all sorts of places we wouldn't consider notable. And placename books are a spotty resource, and again, we don't have a lot of experience with this one; but it doesn't come out and say it was anything but a stop on the railroad with a post office. Also, I must reiterate, neither source states the chief claim for the nature of the place as given in the article. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
You seem to have taken exception to my statement in the other AfD. I do have enough experience with the CGNDB to know that it does not suffer any of the same problems as GNIS, and inclusion in the CGNDB satisfies the "legal recognition" part of NPLACE. Lillestrom is clearly populated, and has been populated for over 100 years based on what I'm seeing on Newspapers.com... If the article content is wrong, then the article needs to be edited, not deleted. In any case, even if we had literally nothing to say about this place, it does exist, so the solution in this case would be to redirect it to the community or municipality it is apart of. In this case, the target would be Rural Municipality of Hillsborough No. 132. I think we have enough to retain it as a standalone article, though. MediaKyle (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I feel I must continue to reserve judgement on the "legal recognition" thing, but how many times do I have to point out that even if the classification given in CNGDB is authoritative, it defines the place as a "locality", which is not something that passes muster under WP:GEOLAND. And no, I long ago set aside the "wrong is not a reason to delete," because a false article is worse than no article at all. If you have all these sources, then edit the article and correct it, or cite what it says. And if you can fix its problems, I'll be happy to change my response here. But until then, no. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
What, precisely, do you think a locality is? Because it varies by province... In Nova Scotia, localities are a smaller area, sometimes with and sometimes without legally defined boundaries, included within the boundary of an unincorporated community. There are some localities which are independently notable, and some which redirect to the community they are apart of. For Saskatchewan, I'm less sure, but "locality" in this case seems to be closer to "unincorporated community"... There's only three "localities" within the Rural Municipality of Hillsborough No. 132, and they don't appear to be apart of other communities. I guess I'll go ahead and make a few edits to the article... MediaKyle (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"Locality" is what we in the day called a lengthy Latinate locution for 'region" or "area"; M-W just gives it as a synonym for place or location. I believe GNIS uses "locale". If it has some legal definition in Canada, I don't think that's going to make it automatically a notable place; and if what you give is the definition, that's not going to move me. It makes it sound like a neighborhood for some area that as a name, but which isn't a town or such unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Češka

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

Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL. Only the location of the hill is cited, the second source does not mention the hill. Refs in cswiki only include maps. The hill is not notable in any way, it does not stand out in terms of height or nature conservation. FromCzech (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Calabouço, Mozambique

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

I am unable to find a single reference to a place named Calabouço in Mozambique, even in passing, much less in a reliable source. The original text of the article doesn't even claim it was a village, town, etc., just a "place". No indication of passing WP:NPLACE. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mozambique. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Strong keep: Calabouço is a real, identifiable settlement in Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique, and its existence can be verified through geographic databases such as GeoNames. The article is currently a stub and could certainly use better sourcing, but a lack of sources in the current version is not, by itself, a reason for deletion. The article can be improved by adding reliable sources covering the settlement's location, administrative status, and local significance. Altitude Multitude (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Goenames is not in fact a reliable source: it's a mirror of GNS, nd we've found that in Africa and the far east it seems to be based on old and very dubious military maps. And it's not good enough to say "it can be improved by adding reliable sources;" until we have such sources, until we have some sign that the place actually exists, those of us who have spent the last decade dealing with these articles have not confidence that the place is real and not the figment of some mapmaker's imagination. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Another possibility that comes to mind is that there may have been a place known by a similar name at some point in time, but the given location is so far off (e.g. as the results of a surveying or transcription error) that we aren't looking in the right place at all, and the name was recorded incorrectly as well or has fallen out of use. But if that's the case, then there's nothing left in the article which is verifiable. Omphalographer (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Places are not notable just because they exist. Yue🌙 (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

at this point, delete The mapping is a very bad sign. The coordinates given in the article have been rounded off to minutes, which is not good enough to locate a town in most areas anyway, but taking the value directly from Geonames and plugging it into GMaps produces an anonymous spot in the woods near a town which GMaps gives a completely different name for, and for which we don't have an article. Zooming out doesn't produce any other obvious candidate, and GMaps is really only good enough for verification, not good enough as a source by itself. We need a real source, and just a name and coordinates are probably going to fail verification as it is. I'm going to say that it's likely that most of these Mozambique town articles are going to fail unless someone can come up with a census or something else that we can match up with the mapping sources. Maybe these aren't quite bad enough to justify a "delete the lot and start over" approach, but so far my confidence is pretty much a rock bottom. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I've actually found sources for a couple of other Mozambique permastubs (previously in URA NOV23), which makes me feel better about saying that some of these aren't actually populated settlements. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Metocheria

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

Unsourced stub since creation in 2010. Cannot find any reliable sources indicating that this is a populated place - the only reliable source I have found (ProQuest 2503186818) refers to it as a Cavendish banana export plantation (Metocheria) in northern Mozambique and Metocheria farm near Namialo in Northern Mozambique, not a populated place. The first version of this article appears to have been created based off of an elevation/rainfall map. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Mozambique-related AfD discussions. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
comment If you believe GMaps, this is probably salvageable. There is a large town labeled with this name to the southeast of the given coordinates. But we do not some source besides Geonames. Mangoe (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

comment it's confusing - I find a few alluding to it as a populated place - this one about banana production in its region mentions it as a locality, for example. i also see some like this and this referring to it as a farm and this referring to it as a banana plantation. my best bet is that either there's a farm named Metocheria and a place named Metocheria or that the farm is a populated town kinda like those old corporation towns. I also have sources like this UNICEF article stating there's a health center there (Metocheria Health Center) and this article mentioning it is stopped at by a passenger railroad. Jishara (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are these mentions enough evidence of existence/notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep Ultimately, after debating back and forth, I think these mentions are enough evidence of its existence as a populated town/village to squeak through. Open to more discussion, though. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Col d'Andrion

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

Neither does the German nor English site contain a reference to draw on. While browsing for references, I cannot find any RS to help support the article aside from hiking blogs. I'm not sure it's notable to warrant its own article after reviewing WP:GEONATURAL. ABehjat (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of France-related AfD discussions. ABehjat (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak keep There's nothing in-depth I can find written about it besides being an Alpine biking trail, but it appears on numerous sites. There are some biking videos posted, so we can be pretty sure it exists. This describes it a little better. I'm not versed on Geo notability policies, but since it exists, does having the place listed hurt the encyclopedia? Mike Gauya (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:GEONATURAL/WP:GNG. The coverage I've found is predominantly recreational hiking/cycling mentions as opposed to proper WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Might be worth redirecting to List of mountain passes or a similar regional analogue. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The pass is mentioned in numerous sources, though these mentions are almost certainly insufficient to pass WP:GEONATURAL. A redirect would seem the logical WP:ATD, but to which page? List of mountain passes § Alps only mentions notable passes, so that won't do. It is linked only in Roquebillière § See also, and perhaps that could be converted to a proper mention. If not, then reluctantly delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Morro do Diabo

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

I propose redirecting to Rio Grande do Sul because article has no references since 2006, and doesn't appear to meet full notability Majash2020 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related AfD discussions. Majash2020 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment – All the searches I did using only "Morro do Diabo" are related to Morro do Diabo State Park in Teodoro Sampaio, São Paulo. Redirecting the sentence to Rio Grande do Sul state article could lead to a misunderstanding. Svartner (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Morro do Diabo State Park, would merge if anything here was sourced. Geschichte (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Morro do Diabo State Park as the more specific target. If sources are found they can go in that article. No, wait. These are in two different states and probably unrelated. I wonder if a disambiguation page is needed. M kuhner (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The Morro do Diabo mentioned in the article is a hill in the city of Carlos Barbosa, but I only found one free-hosted blog talking about it. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. I think either redirect will add more confusion than it solves, given that this name is shared by a park and a hill and they are not anywhere near each other. As someone doing a search I would rather get nothing than a redirect to a completely different location. M kuhner (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Flecheiras

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

This article seems to be a WP:HOAX. The pages content is literally IDENTICAL to Emboaca and Barra Grande except for the place names, and extremely similar to Mundaú, which were pretty much the page creator's only contributions to Wikipedia besides creating a possibly existent town article called Guajiru. Looking at the user contributions pages histories, except for Guajiru, all seem to be unsourced entirely and only bot and simple/auto edits have been made in the entire page lifespans. I suspect with the exception of Guajiru (but possibly also it too) all of them are hoaxes and should be moved to WP:HOAXLIST. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete – A quick search turned up only booking sites and an Instagram page for the place, but no official sources or news coverage to justify an article. Svartner (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:NGEO, the hoax claims are out of place here as the village exists and that's verifiable, it's just a matter of cleanup (which I have started to perform) and expansion. Several things in the article are also correct and verifiable, eg. being a fishing village can be easily sourced, eg. Lonely Planet Brazil guide calls it "fishing village" and this book has a whole chapter about the village (Turismo e Emprego em Flecheiras) and spends at least a paragraph about its fishing activities. Side note, the book reports a population of 3,070 as of 2002, which is a significant figure. This other book also talks about its fishing activities and mentions its tourism development. I see enough sources in Google Books (even if most of them only show snippets) for a decent article. Cavarrone 05:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per Cavarrone - real place, discussed in Lonely Planet. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

List of districts in South East England by population

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

This should be merged as other than the GSS code there is no information here that isn't included there and no other region has a separate list, it would be more useful to have all districts in 1 list (the lists by population, area and ethnicity etc can stay). It was tagged for merging back in 2009/2010 but it was removed probably because the discussion at Talk:List of English districts#Why so many articles? focused on the other lists like area etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The data is already in the main list article, so a simple delete will suffice. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Tump Tehsil

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

I propose redirecting to Tump District because the Tehsil was apparently changed to a District according to the linked Kech District article. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related AfD discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Tump Tehsil is an administrative subdivision (tehsil) located in the Tump District of the Makuran Division of Balochistan province of Pakistan.

Tump Tehsil was formerly part of Kech District (also known as Turbat) of the Makuran Division of Balochistan province of Pakistan. Safeer Zaman (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The district was carved out of Kech District in March 2026. The district headquarters is at Tump city. Tump, previously was part of the Turbat/Kech District. Safeer Zaman (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose: if I understand correctly, there are both a Tump District and a Tump Tehsil (part of the Tump District). Both are legal jurisdictions, which can have their own articles per WP:NGEO. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

On the other hand, there is also Tump, Balochistan, the city in the Tehsil. Not sure though if this article can or should be merged with Tump Tehsil. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Can you clarify if there actually is a Tump tehsil still, as Kech District states that there is not one, that it is now only Tump District. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Yes, there is. Finally found a reliable source showing that. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Some thoughts: Both of thes# *** Numbered list iteme articles are minimaly informative stubs. As Wikipedia has grown and inproved there is less a need for micro-stubs and an inprovement of merging over redirecting. Both, it appears, are legal jurisdictions as administrative subdivisions. WP:NGEO offers a presumption, but not necessarily a guarantee. It seems, since Tump Tehsil is part of Tump District that a "merge" would create a better article, allowing expansion of the unfilled areas of both Tump Tehsil, Mand Tehsil, and even Zamoran Tehsil. These articles do suffer from a lack of attention and sourcing issues. At a point, and inprovements, splitting can be considered. Pinging Jerodlycett and P199 for opinions. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: A rationale for merging would be Wikipedia:MERGESHORT. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

IMO, merging tehsils into the district is not a good idea, because they are different levels of jurisdiction. Since the Tump Tehsil article is so poor, it would be better to merge it into Tump, Balochistan. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Van Petten, Illinois

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG. No evidence of a community at this location.

The article Welcome to Ven Petten: Population 2 only describes a couple who live next to the former rail depot, who have turned their home into a sort of museum. No mention is made of a former larger town. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Added some sources. Also, the "Van Petten:Population 2" article does mention former establishments, including a general store, grain company, and railroad station. This was never a vibrant town, but it was a recognized community.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The general store and grain company are typical for what you'd find on the grounds of a simple rural railroad station. I'm not sure where the "recognized community" description is coming from. Although it was platted as a town, we don't have any evidence that a town ever actually formed there. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I mean informally recognized. And there's a 2010 news story saying they have a mayor and pay town taxes in 2010 to remain a town. I understand why you nominated the article for deletion, but i think its sufficiently notable. (ETA: also note the 1938 reference saying the population is 12.) There are many old newspaper references to the community, but those are more the variety of "Bill Joe of Van Petten came to Dixon today", so i didn't want to pollute the references with that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Which notability guideline do you believe this meets? Van Petten doesn't appear in 2012 Illinois Counties and Incorporated Municipalities, and it's not clear what this "town tax" refers to. This really just looks like a single couple who was keeping the idea of a "town" alive for sentimental purposes. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be either official recognition or significant coverage to meet NPLACE or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I have continued to improve the article and feel comfortable stating I am now an expert in the complete history of Van Petten, Illinois. As a self-appointed expert, you will unable to sway my !vote. Seriously though, i think there's a fair case for showing it was an informally recognized small community that started in 1901 and that had largely died by the late 1930s. The plat was not vacated until 2024. I still don't know what the town tax is, so my expertness is perhaps incomplete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak Keep. The sources identified by Milowent are certainly enough for a redirect and I think just enough to keep a stand alone article. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - Milowent's sources are more than enough to pass NPLACE. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Nom comment - Crisco 1492, I meant to say something before the week was up but I'd support a Keep close since the article's been expanded. Feel free to un-relist and close. –dlthewave ☎ 00:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Boulder, Illinois

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

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG. Sourced only the unreliable GNIS database. The article does not cite reliable sources. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I can find several articles about things happening at Boulder, many of them recent: , , . From USGS maps it looks like there was a significant town there a century ago: . The generic name makes it hard to find sources, but I am sure some more are out there. Still, none of these are really "about" the place so I don't want to be too set on keeping. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect probably to Clinton County, Illinois (the other possibility is Carlyle Lake). The sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed aren't enough by themselves to pass WP:GNG which is what is required for communities that lack the 'government recognition' prong of WP:NPLACE. But I think it's real and a possible search term so a redirect makes sense. Nothing sourced to merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep as there's coverage about it - . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhanansari1994 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Aberdeen, Medina County, Texas

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

I can't find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources - or in fact any evidence that it existed other than the few sentences in one many's journal. This was not a legally recognized place, so it does not meet the presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. See History of Aberdeen links on The History of the Rocking Chair Ranche Company: A Cattle Legacy in Texas. [History of Aberdeen, Medina County: A Glimpse into the Past]. A bibliography is provided there. Much, if not most, most Texas history is like this. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Maile66: I assume you intended to link this article and this article. The first only mentions Aberdeen in a few sentences; the second is only a few sentences long. That's really not enough to qualify as significant coverage. I'm open to being convinced if there's anything in those bibliographies with more coverage, but what we have so far is not enough to pass GNG.

It does appear that we have an article about the ranch company that's a plausible redirect/merge target. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Yes, you are correct in my attempted linking — Maile (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@Pi.1415926535, what did you mean by "one many's journal"? SenshiSun (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

@SenshiSun: That should have been "one man's journal". The only source in the article is a single paragraph based on a mention in someone's journal. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks! Sorry for the disruption. SenshiSun (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Globalization and World Cities Research Network

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

This article only cites the network's page as well as a book by the network's founder, none of which are independent sources. The last source, "Tourism and the branded city", mentions the network's name one single time and thus provides no in-depth coverage. Use in other publications is minimal from what could find, and also lacks depth. Cortador (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: England, Organizations, and Geography. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

While not well cited and documented on Wikipedia, the Gawc cities index is produced regularly by the University of Loughborough the UK following a specific algorithm. It is widely seen as reliable. ~2026-40749-71 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

if that is the case, then we should expect and require there to be credible sources available to confirm it. Are you able to provide any? Gryfia (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

It's not well-cited and document at all, not just on Wikipedia. And it's "widely seen as reliable" by whom? Cortador (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The individuals responsible for the creation of this think tank look pretty legit, especially since it's affiliated with a university. I think format-wise the article isn't too different from other articles (e.g. various democracy indices or other existing globalization indices) that throw out a ranking, with maybe a methodology, and that's it; in terms of the reliability of this source, it's sort of circular in that it is reliable because it is attached to a university (lots of peer review, scrutiny, etc) and universities (and institutions like this attached to them) are thus reputable as well.

In terms of citations, I found this piece from the Brookings Institution that uses GaWC data for its research: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20050222_worldcities.pdf

This other paper using that same data (it is written by the founders of the think tank) has 844 citations by other scholars/publications which you can see if you click on the citations page: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275199000426

So I'd assume brookings and the amount of citations the ScienceDirect article has implies that they consider this think tank (and the people running it who wrote the sciencedirect piece) as reputable individuals within the academic niche of urban studies. It also seems consultancies utilize similar datasets too; A.T. Kearney has their own version of this index for their purposes. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Neither source provides in-depth coverage of the actual think tank, and both papers are from one of the founders of the think tank, Peter Taylor. Of course the founder of the think tank would consider his own think tank reliable.

These sources are not independent and do not contribute to coverage by reliable sources independent from the subject of the article. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Reading through the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources, the source itself is still reliable; the think tank founders wouldn't be published by Brookings or ScienceDirect. These organizations have vetted the authors prior to publication; the sources I attached are not self-published if that's what you're trying to say, nor do university professors often meet the Wikipedia criteria for "questionable sources". I also don't think they would be backed by their university if they were quacks, and Brookings/ScienceDirect vetting means this meets the criteria for reliable scholarship given they don't just publish anyone and meet the criteria for independent sources/vetters.

You also haven't discussed how 844 citations the ScienceDirect article has; JSTOR has also citations for this think tank too per the deletion infobox: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Globalization+and+World+Cities+Research+Network%22&acc=on&wc=on&so=rel. Perhaps some of them could be incorporated into this article, but the sciencedirect/elvesier article written by the founders of the think tank pioneers the methodology the entire think tank and this article's ranking rests on, and it has been cited 844 times by other publications. So this methodology/ranking that the think tank promotes definitely has notability, appears in other publications, etc as Wikipedia criteria describes.

I don't disagree that many articles like this (rankings of X based on Y methodology, like various articles for democracy indices and whatnot) lack depth as you originally stated, but I just think it's the nature of such articles as a whole; a lot of pages will literally just list countries by GDP or population with even less substance than this article and that seems to be fine as far as everyone on Wikipedia's concerned. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Reliability alone doesn't contribute to notability. We need in-depth coverage by independent sources for this think tank to be notable, and we don't have that.

Other articles having the same issue isn't an argument to keep this article, it's an argument to delete them as well as per OTHERSTUFF. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I'm curious if the 844 academic citations from other independent scholars and non-think tank publications/publishing houses not count for notability? The methodology this think tank pioneered seems like a widely cited and employed methodology in the niche field of urban studies and a lot of these citations are independent. Some merely cite its data, some compare various methodologies for evaluating cities, some critique the idea of city-rankings entirely, etc. Feel free to dig through the citations, I've attached two academic pieces that center around the GaWC below:

This academic paper gets really into the nitty gritty when evaluating the correlation between the GaWC and immigration: https://gum.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5166/files/downloads/Immigration%20and%20World%20Cities.pdf.

This book critiques the hierarchy of cities citing the GaWC for being too centered on Advanced Producer Services like accounting etc: Rethinking UrbanismLessons from Postcolonialism and the Global South By Garth Myers

Here is an article from another think tank formally highlighting the GaWC at Loughborough University as the pioneer of academic research into global city networks: https://globalaffairs.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/On_Global_Cities.pdf

This one from the Greater London Authority mentions the importance of Greater London maintaining its status as a world class city, citing its GaWC ranking: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/future_of_the_central_activities_zone.pdf. I think this one is quite significant.

It also seems to be notable enough that Chinese state media and the Michelin Guide would make reference to these rankings: https://en.people.cn/n3/2017/1208/c90000-9302263.html https://guide.michelin.com/us/en/article/travel/chefs-travel-accra-ghana

Feel free to submit articles like List of countries by GDP (nominal) or Cato Institute(which really just cites itself for 90% of the article) for deletion, although I would assume there's a good reason those articles are up if nobody's successfully deleted these widely-visited articles in the past 20 years. Overall I don't see much reason to delete articles like this and I think despite its nicheness it's clearly notable given how widely cited and employed the think tank's methodology and how it pioneered city-rankings per the Chicago think tank piece (and obviously reliable) enough. I'll say keep, although I won't disagree the article could have more content. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

None of these articles provides independent in-depth coverage of the think tank, which is what we need.

If you feel that there are other equally poorly-sourced articles, you can nominate them for deletion. I'm not doing that for you. Cortador (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

If you want people to cite something specific, you need to be specific about what you want them to cite. "In-depth coverage of the think tank" is as vague as you can possibly be. What kind of coverage qualifies? What doesn't? What are the rules? Are the rules stated anywhere on Wikipedia? Don't ad hoc this, otherwise you come across as a denialist. Chris Weimer (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Wikipedia has notability guidelines, and notability isn't assured for think tanks.

It's not my job to prove that this topic doesn't have sufficient sourcing, it's the job of those who wish to keep it to demonstrate that it does. Cortador (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I have provided quite a bit of evidence in the comment below the relisting page and cited WP:NCORP as well for our mutual benefit; it seems Wikipedia does have guidelines for this sort of thing, which I wasn't aware of before. Do you think the evidence I've submitted meets WP:NCORP guidelines, especially that concerning Wikipedia's criteria for significant coverage? Thanks. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Hi Chris, Wikipedia does have WP:NCORP for organizations and their products (in this case, the think tank and its academics are "selling" the idea cities can be ranked alongside a methodology to do so) and have attached sources that I feel meet WP:NCORP's criteria for significant coverage, which is the bar for notability that Cortador and I are in contention over. Feel free to skim over it in the very long comment below. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoconutOctopus talk 08:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. I think there is plenty of in-depth coverage given how there are many articles too that provide criticism or utilization of this think tank and the methodology it created as well as I mentioned prior. Both of us have come to a consensus the reliability of the source (an accredited university) is not an issue. Moreso the issue is now notability.

The two sources I described, not to mention some of the 844 citations the sciencedirect publication pioneering the categorization of cities into Alpha, Beta, and Gamma cities, and numerous other academic works have made explicit mention and cover the GaWC by name and make use of its methodology/terminology from independent academics/journals/publications. The think tank has been explicitly named, the founders/members have numerous citations, the methodology and terminology have numerous mentions as well. Some of these are new sources, some of these are sources I mentioned prior. There are 844 publications that cite PJ Taylor/GaWC's pioneering methodology, per examples listed below.

Note per WP:NCORP, significant coverage is defined as an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization (vs say a name-drop in the Michelin Guide article I linked, which is a trivial mention that does not say much else about the GaWC). I feel that all of the articles below meet this standard. The "product," aka its methodology and publications from its affiliated scholars (as this is what a think tank produces) with this think tank, have been subject to significant analysis, study, description, overviews in many papers, evaluations, etc. I think it is important to keep that in mind as we evaluate whether or not the think tank has been covered; I don't think my fellow editor was aware of that wording in WP:NCORP. Even if say, "product" somehow does not count, the GaWC has been mentioned, discussed, evaluated, etc by name as well.

There's a book review by an NYU Professor (now teaching Urban Sociology at UChicago) of a book published by the GaWC called "Cities in Globalization" (2007) listed on the GaWC website. It evaluates whether or not the GaWC's focus on inter-city relations should become a major focal point for research on globalized urbanization, which I think qualifies as significant coverage of a product (publication) of this think tank by an independent and reliable source per WP:NCORP. For the credibility or vetting of this review, the book review was published by Wiley-Blackwell in the peer-reviewed academic journal Growth and Change.

Here is one article that evaluates the GaWC as it evaluates different methodologies of ranking cities.

This is a criticism/evaluation of the GaWC methodology pioneered by PJ Taylor as deficient and centers around the GaWC directly and in depth.

This is independent, non-trivial coverage/overview/description of the GaWC as an organization in this publication as well by a Slovakian scholar.

PhD Thesis conducing an evaluation of the GaWC in relation to the predictability of large law firm geography:

This article discusses the GaWC as it explicitly identifies the network by name to contrast their own approach centered around immigration against GaWC's research agenda. It explicitly names and critiques the Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) research framework as an institutional paradigm in urban geography. They dedicate substantial analysis towards evaluating the limitations of the GaWC economic ranking model compared to socio-cultural metrics, in this case immigration. I think it's a good independent secondary source directly evaluating the research network's core output and conceptual model.

This paper tells us something very important about the GaWC and why it's a bigger deal than other city rankings, because , to quote, "Unlike other lists of major world cities such as those by Beaverstock, Smith, and Taylor, (1999)) and MasterCard (2008), the lists by the GaWC Research Network are available for several years and thus allow for a dynamic classification of global cities as investment locations." This signifies the importance of the GaWC as an organization in the niche field of urban studies from an independent secondary source; while brief, I would say this qualifies as significant coverage as it is quite a valuable piece of commentary that exemplifies why this methodology and organization are notable within this academic field (in that unlike other rankings it conducts its rankings frequently as to have a big impact on being able to classify global cities as investment locations).

I'm not sure what the bar for think tank "coverage" is, but it seems that the GaWC as an organization has been at least mentioned, analyzed, critiqued, discussed, etc in numerous academic publications to qualify for keeping based on the criteria below.

Here are the exact notability guidelines for organizations per WP:NCORP:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth (see above examples)

Be completely independent of the article subject (yes, given these academics don't have affiliation with the university or the think tank)

Meet the standard for being a reliable source (yes, given publication in reputable academic journals or by accredited universities with peer review standards and vetting much higher than say, us on Wikipedia)

Be a secondary source (yes)

Other editors feel free to provide your viewpoint. There are maybe 830 citations left to dig through for anyone else looking to find a significant/notable mention of the GaWC, in the event someone all of these sources do not clear the bar. I suspect that think tank articles, even if not fleshed-out articles or a bit niche, resist deletion due to widespread "significant coverage" of their "product" (methodology, statistics, scholars) in academic literature to meet notability requirements. E.g. V-Dem democracy index, Economist Democracy Index, Global Financial Centers Index. Yes, many articles like those aren't necessarily "deep" but still remain notable.

In response to the admin's comment, I do apologize for the length of this comment; I'm trying to explain the sources I find given how academic/jargony they are and also how they meet WP:NCORP criteria and have reformatted it accordingly.

MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stop with the long strangely formatted comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

McKeen, Illinois

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

Fails WP:NPLACE, Sourced only the unreliable GNIS database. No evidence that this place is a unincorporated community . VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Again fails WP:NPLACE per nomination. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Clark County, Illinois as GNIS is not enough and this is an unincorporated place that would need reliable and verifiable sources about the place to establish notability. A redirect is the best WP:ATD option here. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Clark County, Illinois as a WP:ATD. As a side note, I don't think that GNIS is necessarily unreliable, it's just not WP:SIGCOV. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 22:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as WP:NAC "redirect", but reopened upon request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak keep I found 2 sources and added them, with some info, but I'm not sure about the reliability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak keep per WP:GEOLAND - 1883 history does verifiably describe it as a 'village' and offer a bit about history, suggesting that WP:NPLACE is met here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Geography-related proposed deletions