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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Geography|sig=~~~~}} 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

Burch, West Virginia

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

I can't find anything that supports this alleged "historical name" of Delbarton, West Virginia, only some schools there named Burch. Even if there were, it doesn't rate a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Outline of the Middle Belt

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

I propose merging this into Middle Belt, I am not sure why we should have another article on the same subject with a detailed outline; all the information here (some of which is indeed useful) should simply be added to the Middle Belt page Ar1201u1 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Ar1201u1 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose merger. This fundamentally misunderstands the role that Wikipedia:Outline pages serve on Wikipedia. This doesn't contain much information about the subject that can be merged, but serves more as a navigational tool for readers. It's not another article on the subject, but a way to organize and locate articles about the subject. Katzrockso (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Oppose: To me, if there could be any issues with this page, that may be something related to the styling of the content, and not the page's existence itself. Why would the page be merged with another when Wikipedia allows for Outlines to be created? We have many existing similar Outlines on Wikipedia already, with no calls for their merging. Wondering why there is a call for this one. Kambai Akau (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge to Outline of Nigeria or Middle Belt. This page is just a set of links that would already be at the main Middle Belt article, if it were actually comprehensive. This main topic is a very short article and so even if we grant that outline pages can serve a navigational role, this is not such a long and complex main topic that actually needs another page to organize links – the fact that outline pages are an established concept does not inherently justify the existence of any outline (and I would also call for others to be merged). The above comments don't address this outline, and the fact that they can serve a certain role doesn't mean that an arbitrary outline on whatever subject is needed or appropriate to keep – one could take any article and strip away the prose to leave collated related articles. Expansion of Middle Belt ("an informal term, not officially recognized by the federal government of Nigeria") with relevant content and links is much more valuable than this page, and it's not clear at all that this specific topic should have another page to navigate disparate and nonspecific links. However, Nigeria as a whole is in fact a primary topic that warrants a companion outline page, and, moreover, most of these links would actually be quite relevant at Outline of Nigeria which can also use improvement. The states are redundant to the list of states there, much of the history section is generic to all of Nigeria and not specific to this region (e.g. "Religious violence in the Middle Belt" actually links to Religious violence in Nigeria and 1966 Nigerian counter-coup took place in southern Nigeria, not here), and the lengthy languages section is better at Languages of Nigeria or the respective family pages. Reywas92^Talk 05:53, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Autonomous province

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

I propose merging to Autonomous administrative division because it is just a subgroup of autonomous regions which are called "province". They may be first level or sub-first level so there is no real consistency. There are also cases missing.

The article is just a stub and mostly consists of a list. I would point out that i did a similar discussion already with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autonomous areas by country but i simply didn't notice this article then. Braganza (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT. It also doesn't seem like there is much literature on the topic of specifically an autonomous province itself that would warrant a standalone article. Katzrockso (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Heart's Delight, City of Canterbury

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

As part of the NOV26 project to address Unreferenced articles I initially nominated this article for deletion using the PROD tag. Another editor then removed this tag when replacing the whole article with a REDIRECT. However I rolled back their change as I felt it had not been justified and in this was I was able to add an item to the article Talk page to allow discussion to proceed about the appropriate solution. Now the PROD tag has been removed as restoring it is contrary to permitted procedures. My view is that firstly the article is inappropriately titled - this location is not in the city of Canterbury. Secondly there is a lack of notability for the building - it is just a holiday let as far as I can see. The page to which the proposed REDIRECT was targeted does not mention this location and does not have any reason to do so in my opinion. If in fact there is a consensus to support a REDIRECT then I would contend that it should come from a new page simply entitled "Heart's Delight" (but my own opinion on notability would still stand). ChilternEdge (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. ChilternEdge (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's a very tiny settlement, and I can't find any references to expand the article, so I don't think it meets NPLACE #2. On older maps it appears as Heartsdelight or Hearts Delight, and in 1142 it was Herteslonde. The present title seems like a very unlikely search term, and Heart's Delight, Swale (which has at least one source) would have a better claim to the unqualified name. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge into Barham, Kent as it is part of that parish. If more sources are found, it could be split off again. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 15:31, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Shot Tower Historical State Park

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

I propose merging to Jackson Ferry Shot Tower because the two articles have very similar scope, and the park is essentially nothing without the tower. Having two articles for this would be like having a page for George Washington Birthplace National Monument and then another one for George Washington Birthplace. Also, the article is a stub and likely to remain one. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Virginia. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 23:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I would also support a reverse merge as the tower is located within the park, but I don't mind either way. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, if anything it may be easier to merge it into the tower and then rename in that case. Personally, I was searching for the state park and found it difficult to find because it was located at Jackson Ferry Shot Tower. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 16:59, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Rada'a

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of another editor, as requested at WT:AFD:

I propose merging into Rada'a, Al-Bayda because the latter is an identical WP:FORK of the former with less content. Hsnkn (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Rada'a and then move Rada'a, Al-Bayda to just Rada'a (Arabic Wikipedia doesn't mention any other places with that name, so the disambiguation should be unnecessary). Both articles have basically the same text added by User:Magedsaleh392, who first created a draft for "Rada'a" and a few days later edited the older article "Rada'a, Al-Bayda". The disambiguated title should of course be kept as a redirect. --Kapulakone (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I would prefer it be moved to "Radda, al-Bayda", as it seems to be the more common transcription and is consistent with Radda district. That base name is currently a disambiguation page, which is why I proposed adding the province at the end. Hsnkn (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is better to have consistency. So, move Rada'a, Al-Bayda to Radda, al-Bayda and also redirect Rada'a to that article? --Kapulakone (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
That would be ideal imo. Hsnkn (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Bayview, Baltimore

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

A “normal” neighborhood with a street lined with houses and parks, just like any other. I searched sources in Google, Google Books and Google News and all I can find is Niche, Neighborhoods.com, Homes.com, this Reddit post, Waze and other bad sources

In other words, it FAILS WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND and WP:V. I suggest to delete or redirect to List of Baltimore neighborhoods.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maryland. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I do not agree with the deletion of this article. The City of Baltimore publishes a list of it's neighborhoods, and Bayview is listed on it. https://s3.amazonaws.com/baltimorecity.gov.if-us-east-1/s3fs-public/2026-02/nsa.pdf Fishieman15 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Neighborhoods and other similar administrative decisions are not notable simply for their existence under WP:GEOLAND. Katzrockso (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
To add to that: existence neither is nor is proof of notability in any topic area. Nobody is challenging the existence of the subject(s–this is a bundled nomination), just their notability. (No opinion on that front with regard to these articles.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Existence ≠ Notability VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Central European Arc Measurement

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

I propose merging to International Geodetic Association because the "Central European Arc Measurement" existed for only 5 years, from 1862 to 1867, then it changed to "European Arc Measurement" until 1886 when it became International Geodetic Association (see eg Drewes, H., Hornik, H., Ádám, J., & Rózsa, S. (2012). Journal of Geodesy. Journal of Geodesy, 86(10), 787-974.) Thus this organization only lasted 5 years and its properly part of the history of the modern organization. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: the nominal proposed target is actually a redirect to International Association of Geodesy, which is presumably the actual intended target. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, thanks Johnjbarton (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Geography, Europe, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

In my opinion, the article should not be merged. I would rather propose that the section History of Central European Arc Measurement be replicated as an exerpt in a section History in International Association of Geodesy. Indeed Central_European_Arc_Measurement#History has an introductory section referring to Central European Arc Measurement, a subsection called European Arc Measurement and a subsection called International Geodetic Association. Charles Inigo (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

I moved the section Central_European_Arc_Measurement#History up in the article and created an excerpt in International_Association_of_Geodesy#History. Charles Inigo (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Excerpt

I noticed that you undid my excerpt in International_Association_of_Geodesy#History. As the Central European Arc Measurement and the Magnetischer Verein are the two earliest scientific associations (I mentionned this point in the leading section of Central European Arc Measurement) and that both the International Association of Geodesy and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics stemmed from the Central European Arc Measurement, I propose to use an excerpt of the leading section of Central European Arc Measurement in the History section of both the International Association of Geodesy and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. Charles Inigo (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Ajacan

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

I propose merging to Ajacán Mission because Ajacan is the same topic as Ajacán Mission, and this article has significant problems. Any substantive content supported by reliable sources in this article that does not duplicate the content in Ajacán Mission can be moved over to Ajacán Mission. Donald Albury 15:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, Spain, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Support The page itself does not indicate how it differs from Ajacán Mission. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:30, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Support per WP:OVERLAP. FaviFake (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per THEZDRX. The article fails to establish notability separate from the Ajacán Mission.

Quince&Medlar (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Clifdale, Virginia

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

Useless, single-sentence microstub. Completely unsourced. No evidence that this is a so-called "community". Fails WP:NPLACE. AusLondonder (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related AfD discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Only passing mentions found, and maps before 2010 consistently called this "Clif Dale Church" or "Clifdale Chapel": . Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - per WeirdNAnnoyed and nominator. Cheromaniii (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Lewiny

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

No WP:SIGCOV. The only available sources are blogs and weather reports. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 04:58, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 07:34, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, confirmed search using the instructions in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per commenters above and WP:GEOLAND. Cheromaniii (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment - According to the source this is not a village but a gmina wiejska or rural municipality "consisting only of villages and countryside (occasionally of just one village)". Although its existence is verifiable, it's not clear whether a rural municipality meets the legal recognition requirement of GEOLAND, and this is also a good reminder to verify any place labeled as a "village" since that label is often added erroneously by editors. –dlthewave ☎ 15:02, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Stonewall, Appomattox County, Virginia

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

Per similar articles in the county, this article has only one source which isn't reliable. WP:GNIS See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonewall Mills, Virginia Wobs100 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related AfD discussions. Wobs100 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Oakville, Virginia

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

Per similar articles in the county, this article has only one source which isn't reliable. WP:GNIS Wobs100 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related AfD discussions. Wobs100 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Hollywood, Appomattox County, Virginia

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

Per similar articles in the county, this article has only one source which isn't reliable. WP:GNIS Wobs100 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: This book calls it a church, and that's what it is today . A church can be notable but this one isn't. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Per the rationale I provided last month. No evidence that this is a "community". Quite possibly just another mistake in GNIS, labelling everything a "community". AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Hixburg, Virginia

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

Per similar articles in the county, this article has only one source which isn't reliable. WP:GNIS Wobs100 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related AfD discussions. Wobs100 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: This one seems more likely to be notable than Bowler. It's got a couple of mentions in Appomattox County history books: ,, and had infrastructure, including a church and cemetery, as far back as the USGS maps go (and still does today): . I'm leaning keep but all these are fairly trivial mentions, so more opinion would be nice. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I added the book, you can change it if needed. Wobs100 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
to @WeirdNAnnoyed Wobs100 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails WP:NPLACE as not legally-recognised. We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy WP:GNG. The nearby Walkers Church is listed as being in Pamplin. AusLondonder (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Bowler, Virginia

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

Per similar articles in the county, this article has only one source which isn't reliable. WP:GNIS Wobs100 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related AfD discussions. Wobs100 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Sourced only to GNIS, which is effectively no source at all. Doesn't appear on maps until 1958: , and appears to have just been a farm or grain loading facility for the railroad. The only other mention I can find is a 1922 shipping directory, suggesting this was indeed just a rail point. Today it's a farm. Clearly non notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Golden Eagle, Illinois

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

Here we have an odd one: a modern isolated zip code (as there is no physical post office) but no town, and none as far back as I can see in the aerials. There are people "from" here and there is a ferry of the same name, but it is almost two miles south of the supposed town site. This could probably be kept with some more corroboration, but right now I'm dubious. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 7 November 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)} 15:27, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment. Some sources from newspapers.com

, , ,

Seems it was a post office at one point?

Large number of residents from here in the early 1900s

On early 1900s maps too (warning: this will download a pdf)

Seems people still have addresses here Katzrockso (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep I expanded the article with the sources Katzrockso found and some more that I found on Newspapers.com, and there were a lot more articles about residents and local news items that I didn't see a place for in the article yet. I think this is a case of a real but spread-out rural community that just doesn't have a central town site (aside from the ferry dock, which had a couple of local businesses). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:05, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I can't !vote to keep because I can't access all of those sources and at least a couple sources seems to be referring to the ferry instead of the place. Not completely convinced this is a place under NPLACE, Google Street View just shows an intersection, but won't be !voting delete either due to some of the historical sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per The catalyst. Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:22, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Per TheCatalsty31, meets WP:NPLACE. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:04, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose merging every place listed in Razdolyevskoye Rural Settlement, Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast#Localities into that table. (Disclaimer: I just created the target article.) While they might technically meet WP:NPLACE, every one I've checked (including the administrative center) is a stub with the same set of basic statements and database-like sources. Therefore, I think we should merge them together as per WP:SHORTTEXT, giving each place a row in the table, and putting the unique content of each article into columns such as Russian name, English transliteration, type, coordinates, 2010 population, number of streets, and a catch-all "Notes" (or whatever other wording y'all'd prefer). If the notes for any of them get too long, they can be split back out later. Solomon Ucko (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Europe, and Russia. Solomon Ucko (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep The standalone article has a map which cannot be included in the table. The Russian Wikipedia also has an extensive history section that can be included in a standalone article, but not in the table. There are more than 60 localities in the district, each of them does not merit more than a row in the table in the target article, per WP:ASPECT. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Razdolyevskoye Rural Settlement has a map too. The most zoomed-in option available is Vladimir Oblast, within which the locations of the dots are very close together, so it would be hard for most people to get any value out of looking at it beyond what they'd get from the Settlement's map. If you'd like, I can try to make a combined map of all 67 localities on the scale of Kolchuginsky District, which I think would be much more useful.

Russian Wikipedia indeed has more detail for each of the localities, but unless someone translates it, I don't see how that's relevant.

I agree that each one only merits one row in the target article, and that is indeed appropriate for the amount of content each one currently has. As I said in my nomination, if any get expanded with enough detail, they can be converted back into their own articles then. But until that happens, unless someone is planning to do that soon, I don't see a point in keeping them separate.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Listing all settlements on a single map will only lead to clutter. That this can be expanded is a good reason not to merge. Following your logic, we should merge all stubs unless they are immediately expanded, which is clearly contrary to community consensus. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
There are ways to make the combined map less cluttered, such as by labeling each place with a number or abbreviation instead of its full name, and using the whole width of the page instead of cramming the image into an infobox. Regardless, what use-case is there for a bunch of separate little maps?

I do not think we should "merge all stubs unless they are immediately expanded", but I do support merging any stub that meets the following criteria:
It has been short for a long time, and there are no active plans for substantial expansion, even if it would theoretically be possible

It has a single primary parent article, and would fit well into there

This reflects long-standing guidance. About 19½ years ago, the page that I think was then titled Help:Merging and moving pages was changed to state: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." This has become WP:SHORTTEXT: "If an article is short and, in your opinion as editor, is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into the article on the broader topic." I'm not sure if there was a specific discussion that agreed upon this, but this advice has WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and the closest I've seen to disagreement is a request for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Merging/Archive 1#"a reasonable amount of time". Here are some of the early comments supporting this idea: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Jones (singer) (2nd nomination)#c-Lucasbfr-2007-04-25T09:05:00.000Z-Lemonflash-2007-04-19T00:18:00.000Z.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
That article can be merged doesn't mean it should be merged. The actual approach regarding settlements is seen from the presence of dozens (hundreds?) of thousands of geostubs in the encyclopedia. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep these are all eligible for stand-alone articles and can be expanded. I do not believe merging serves the reader better. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that they can be expanded, but will they be? If not, what is the point in keeping them separate? How do a bunch of little cookie-cutter articles serve the reader better?

By merging them, readers can easily see how they compare to each other. Without that context, the numbers and other statements each article are hard to usefully interpret. For example: Is 3 streets many or few for a place like this? Is a population of 104 large or small? It would be much easier to judge these with reference to a table of nearby places of similar status.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
There's absolutely nothing wrong with short stubs which meet WP:NPLACE. If they didn't meet NPLACE or V I might agree. Whether they will ever be expanded isn't really a reason to merge IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 13:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've thought about the idea of covering less notable Russian populated places in articles about municipalities (rural settlements) before. The alternative, which is the one I have used on both en-wiki and fi-wiki, is prioritizing the administrative center over the municipality, and mentioning all the localities of the municipality in said article (and also linking ones that are notable enough to have their own articles). So basically "Mukhosransk is a rural locality in Volgograd Oblast. It is the administrative center of a rural settlement, which also includes 23 other localities", i.e. the municipality would be covered in Razdolye, Vladimir Oblast.
Ps. personally (emphasis on personally) I'd prefer "Razdolye Rural Settlement", as many Russian populated places have the suffix -ский/-ская/-ское in the "dictionary form" of their names, so the current name can make it look like the center is called "Razdolyevskoye".
No opinion on this proposed merger specifically. --Kapulakone (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I suppose we could combine those two together, though we'd have to be careful to distinguish which statements apply to each, and it's not like there's much written about Razdolye on enwiki, so I don't see much point in that.

"Razdolyevskoye" is the form used in the localities' articles, and Category:Rural settlements of Russia is inconsistent; I am fine with using either name. However, I would like to point out that the municipality's article explicitly states "Its administrative center is the posyolok Razdolye" in the lead, so the main risk of misleading readers would be from mentions in other articles. If we do change the title, I guess we could give the translated name as "Razdolye Rural Settlement" and also provide the transliteration "Razdolyevskoye selskoye poseleniye"?
Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
P.S.

A third possible destination would be to merge all of this into Kolchuginsky District, given that the municipality takes up nearly half of the district's land area. That article is currently short, but I might expand it by translating from other-language versions such as ru:Кольчугинский район.

OTOH, it looks like there are 4 other Rural Settlements (Bavlen{y/skoye}, Yesiplev{o/skoye}, Bolshevik/Ilyinskoye, and Metallist/Florishchinskoye) in that district, so merging there might be too confusing.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the best option for a lead would be Razdolye Rural Settlement (Russian: Раздольевское сельское поселение, romanized: Razdolyevskoye selskoye poseleniye). I don't really like the translation "rural settlement" for сельское поселение, to me it sounds more like it should refer to what are called "rural localities" on en-wiki, so villages, posyoloks etc. Something like "rural municipality" could be better, though native Russian speakers should be the ones to decide what works best. You also made a good point about distinguish[ing] which statements apply to each, a municipality and its center should not be conflated, even if they are covered in the same article.
I'd oppose a merge to Kolchuginsky District, since I feel like it's too broad of a topic. -- Kapulakone (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
It looks like the "rural settlement" phrasing was introduced back in 2008 by User:Altenmann and User:Ezhiki at Rural settlement and by User:Herostratus at Rural settlement (Russia). I agree with you that the phrasing is a bit odd and "rural municipality" makes more sense, but I don't have a strong preference on what naming to use.

Also, is there a reason we're uppercasing that part, even though the source language spells it in lowercase, it's a phrase rather than a name itself, and AFAICT we're using our own translation rather than an official one?

Combining all of these points, I think "Razdolye rural municipality (...)" might the most sense.

However, as for whether or not to include the suffix, what about cases where the name does not match the administrative center, as with Bolshevik in Ilyinskoye, and Metallist in Florishchinskoye? Should we still change those to "Ilyin" and "Florishchin"?

Solomon Ucko (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
"rural municipality" makes more sense No it isnt. A municipality may consist of several settlements. Russian terminology is confusing, just dont try to do a match it to English if you do not know the subject. The place is called a Russian: село selo, then selo it is. I will not go into further detail here, juts let it be known there is no single subdivision type called "municipality": there are several ones similar to English term in the category called "ru:муниципальное образование", but you don't want to speculate what is what by yourself, just get a Russian designation for the particular populated place at hand. --Altenmann >talk 07:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

P.S. And now I've just learned (from ru:муниципальное образование) that in 2025 was a reform to this end, so I guess many WP articles are obsolete now: I dont think anybody went thru thousands of village pages to check for updates. --Altenmann >talk 07:30, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
A municipality may consist of several settlements. Are you referring to multiple selskoye poseleniye in one raion, multiple naselyonnykh punktov in one selskoye poseleniye, or something else?
If you dont understand what I mean, then probably you sholuld not be editing this topic.--Altenmann >talk 12:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

You said, let it be known there is no single subdivision type called "municipality", so I am therefore confused what you're referring to when you say "a municipality".

If you dont understand what I mean: "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness." — https://www.xkcd.com/169/

probably you sholuld not be editing this topic: "In the context of Wikipedia editing, gatekeeping is attempting to control who can contribute to the encyclopaedia or what kind of contributions they are allowed to make. Gatekeeping is disruptive because it contradicts Wikipedia's third and fourth pillars: that anyone can edit and that editors should treat each other with respect and civility." — Wikipedia:Gatekeeping

Also, about discussion formatting: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." — Wikipedia:Etiquette § How to avoid abuse of talk pages

Solomon Ucko (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

I dont think anybody went thru thousands of village pages to check for updates. I think this is a reason to merge — the fewer pages we split information between, the easier it is to go through and fix all of them.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Good point about the capitalization too, I've just capitalized "rural settlement" because I thought that was some convention without actually thinking about it. And for municipalities which are not named after the administrative center, I'd use the "unsuffixed" form for when there is a locality by that name in the municipality, e.g. Yamm (rural locality) is the center of Полновская волость, which I called "Polna Rural Settlement", as there is a village called Polna there and it also was the original center of the selsoviet that preceded the modern "volost", hence the name "Полновская волость" (note that "volost" is just a name used in Pskov Oblast for "rural settlements", not a separate type of municipality). So Флорищинское сельское поселение would be "Florishchi rural municipality/settlement" after Florishchi, because it's safe to assume that the municipality is named after that locality. If a municipality is not clearly named after any locality, I'd go with the suffixed form in that case.
Then again, using the suffixed forms would be in line with articles on districts (Kolchuginsky District is not titled "Kolchugino District"). -- Kapulakone (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
keep. In a table you cant even have annual population stats for each village. Not to say other info. --Altenmann >talk 07:40, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
They don't currently have multiple years of population data, and even if they did, a table would be the perfect place to put that. Solomon Ucko (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
P.S. @Solomon: see WP:BLUDGEON & WP:DEADHORSE. --Altenmann >talk 07:40, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Gilead, Illinois

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

Here we have a bit of a puzzle. If what the article says is correct, then yes, this has some notability though it could just as well be merged into the appropriate county article. The problem is that I haven't been able to verify it, and furthermore, it contradicts the Pike County, Illinois article, which also lacks cites. This page from the county website has a similar story, but I cannot verify that it is independent of our articles, and it's the onlly corroboration I've found. Other than that, I've found nothing. So at this point it looks like a deletion. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 6 November 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)} 23:59, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I think? History of Pike County (1880) p. 249 confirms the fact it was a county seat of Calhoun county, after the Pike County county seat was named at an adjoining locality. Also in Soil Survey of Gilead County (1989), Calhoun County, Illinois: A Study of Geographic Landscapes (1939). Sketch of Edward Coles p.91 says that Cole's Grove or 'Colsgrove' was renamed Gilead, which differs from the 1880 book. I've stopped there, might be more out there. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks for finding that. I'm still a little torn as to merge or a flat keep and as you say there still seems to be some dispute here about the history (which reflects what I saw elsewhere) but I'm inclined to withdraw this. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Someone could easily source a nice little stub based on what I've found. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: Per SportingFlyer. This is good because GNIS information on its own does not advance notability. I didn't dig into the reliability, but there is also Early Calhoun County, IL History Records Preservation Project, information at the Western Illinois University (WIU) IRAD Center, and information in some of George Carpenter’s 14 books. The article Hardin, Illinois also mentions Gilead, so it would not be an orphan. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Bobcat Hills (San Bernardino County, California)

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

I don't see any indication that this mountain/hill passes WP:NATFEAT - I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV, just statistics and coordinates, including searches in academic databases and local searches in newspapers.com. A notability tag was previously removed from this article on the basis that it passes WP:NPLACE, but I don't see any indication that this is a populated place instead of a geographic feature. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete (or redirect to Lanfair Valley). I cannot find any SIGCOV from a quick look. This appears to be a very small group of hills with topographic prominence of about 300 feet (100 m). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think it would be due weight to redirect without a (non-GNIS/database) sourced mention at the target. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment I found an open-access peer-reviewed journal paper with geological map of the Bobcat Hills. The paper is specifically about the geology of the Bobcat Hills. The paper is:

A swarm of mafic alkaline (shonkinite)Watts, K.E., Miller, D.M. and Ponce, D.A., 2024. Mafic alkaline magmatism and rare earth element mineralization in the Mojave Desert, California: The Bobcat Hills connection to Mountain Pass. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 25(1), p.e2023GC011253.

They contain exposures of a swarm of mafic alkaline (shonkinite) dikes with high rare earth element mineralization. That said, the dikes are nothing notable in the grand scheme of regional geology. Paul H. (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply

comment FWIW these do show up on topos, though it appears to be a pair of hills and not a single summit as the article contends. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not doubting that it's real, just that it's notable. ScalarFactor (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Google Scholar brings up a hit on yucca harvesting and another geology hit. WP:NATFEAT is very permissive. The question I don't have the answer to is whether these articles as a whole meet NATFEAT. It seems to me as if it is right in the grey area of notability and that any result (deletion, redirect, keep and update the stub would be fine). The open access one might allow someone to update the stub as it is very detailed. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Lanfair Valley, I am not finding enough sufficient reliable sources to show that the subject of this AfD meets WP:GNG. While WP:NGEO is a very wide ranging SNG (it can be argued it's very forgiving), there isn't much about the hills other than what Mangoe has found. Therefore, as it is a feature within a notable geographic feature, the article can be changed into a redirect to that notable geographic feature.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:20, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Biddle Street, Baltimore

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

A “normal” neighborhood with a street lined with houses (Including censored houses on Google Street View) and parks, just like any other. I searched sources in Google, Google Books and Google News and all I can find is Zillow, Redfin, Apartments.com and other bad sources. In other words, it FAILS WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND and WP:V.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Maryland. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:59, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
delete all as more run of the mill NN neighborhoods. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd probably keep Broadway East, but I'm running into access issues just for that neighbourhood alone, which is the only neighbourhood here with any prose or sources, and the only one which wasn't created by the same user in 2021 (though it doesn't necessarily appear to be a bulk creation on review). I can't even really access the one potentially good source in the article, a conference on the riots there. However for Broadway East there are mentions in scholarly articles which I can't access, and there are at least a couple books referencing some of these neighbourhoods such as Baltimore Neighborhoods by M.W. Wise (2009) and two additional completely unavailable online books like Beyond the White Marble Steps: A Look at Baltimore Neighborhoods (1979) and West Baltimore Neighborhoods: Sketches of Their History, 1840-1960 (Ryon 1993) (note these appear to be are East Baltimore neighbourhoods). I'm not !voting because there's a good chance these are notable topics which haven't been "proven" notable, and notability is not about article content, so if anyone wants to request restoration and improve them I'd go for it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:20, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:58, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Deer Plain, Illinois

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

Lippicott's describes it as a post office, and that's more or less consistent with everything else I found. I've found a couple of references to the Grafton ferry as the Deer Plain ferry even though it's not particularly close to the latter spot, and some Civil War "from" mentions, and a great deal of geological material, but the spot itself is at a jog in farm roads with the only buildings being a couple of barns back when there were buildings at all. So I'm sticking with the post office theory and calling this non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 6 November 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)} 15:38, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Tow Boh Keong

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

This a disputed draftification, so WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. There is evidence that AI has been used in the creation of this draft. An analysis of the references - including a WP:CIRCULAR one from zhWiki - appears to confirm this. Had that not been the case I would have held a discussion for draftification. This requires a 100% rewrite by human hands, thus WP:TNT is the only policy based outcome, assuming the subject to have notability, whcih is not proven. WP:V is not fulfilled 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Geography, and Malaysia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:54, 4 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Lean draftify, delete OK: I initially draftified this and still think it definitely needs more citations if it ever mets notability, but to me it doesn't appear the current version is AI generated. It looked to me more like the work of an inexperienced editor who's having issues with writing, citations, and formatting. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 01:01, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I have included additional citations. This article is notable for the Chinese community of Ipoh, Malaysia and also Southeast Asia. Slabain258 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: the page has been moved to Tow Boh Keong Temple. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 07:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
@TurquoiseGoose It has been returned to the title it ws nominated at. Moving articles during deletion discussions causes concerns and is out of process. It resides at Tow Boh Keong and shoudl stay there until this process concludes 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:44, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I left a message on Slabain258's talk. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 09:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Please recheck this draft, it is 100% writen by me Slabain258 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply

I have no idea why people are so keen to claim that articles are written by AI when there is no sign that they are. It looks very much like a human-written article with issues related to it being human written, such as poor phrasing, grammatical issues, use of promotional language, use of images, sourcing, etc. It looks to be a significant temple in Ipoh, therefore arguably deserving of an article, but I would like to see more sources. It appears that the more sources have been added since the deletion nomination, but it has to be said that many of the sources only mention the temple in passing, or not mentioned it at all. I don't think it is appropriate to delete it, therefore either draftify to improve it or keep if better sources can be found. I believe "Keong" of Tow Boh Keong means temple, so it's not necessary to use Tow Boh Keong Temple. Hzh (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Charles North, Baltimore

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

A “normal” neighborhood with a street lined with houses and parks, just like any other. searched sources in Google, Google Books and Google News and all I can find is Mapcarta, Facebook, Reddit and Zillow. In other words, it FAILS WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND and WP:V.

I suggest to delete or redirect to List of Baltimore neighborhoods.

I am also nominating the following articles:

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Maryland. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 15:31, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Bascharage (commune)

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

Duplicate of Bascharage, which already mentions its status as a former commune Procrastineur (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think this is a duplicate as they discuss different topics and would lean to keep as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I would disagree; except for the population, all the information on Bascharage (commune) is already present on Bascharage. And aside from Clemency, there is no other case of a Luxembourgish commune, defunct or not, having an article that is separate from the one discussing its eponymous administrative centre.
The practice on English Wikipedia is having the article on a given commune also be the article on the town where the commune has its administration (if that town gives its name to the commune). This is different from Luxembourgish Wikipedia, where the practice is indeed to have separate articles (e.g Luerenzweiler and Gemeng Luerenzweiler Procrastineur (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemency (commune). Also, "separate articles for communes only if the commune is not named after the administrative center" makes no sense. I only see two options: either cover communes in the articles about their centers, regardless of the name of the commune, or have separate articles for communes and their centers. --Kapulakone (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't word that very well. There are essentially two types of communes in Luxembourg. Most communes take their name from an actual town or village; that also includes recently-ish formed communes that have resulted from mergers (e.g Wiltz, which absorbed Eschweiler in 2015). In some cases communes have the name of a town that is not its administrative centre (e.g Mertert, where the town hall is in Wasserbillig). Then you have communes that were created through mergers and took an "artificial" name, whether by combining existing names (e.g Rosport-Mompach, Groussbus-Wal, or by taking the names of geographical features that by themselves are not notable (e.g Helperknapp, Kiischpelt, Vallée de l'Ernz.

So in the system presently used on English Wikipedia, the two articles I've nominated for deletion have no need to exist; they each correspond to existing towns that formerly gave their name to a commune. The article dedicated to the new commune of Käerjeng exists because there is no physical place simply called 'Käerjeng'.

Your suggestion of having separate articles for communes is a possibility, but not a simple one. Only Luxembourgish Wikipedia does that right now. It would be considerably time intensive, would create many articles with little potential beyond being stubs (the typical format would simply be short lead + infobox + list of mayors), and would require making an arbitrary decision for each commune (e.g does the commune of Dudelange deserve a separate article like on LB Wikipedia, if it comprises no other notable towns/villages?) Procrastineur (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I understand what you meant now. Personally I think it is a better idea to cover the communes in the articles about their centers in this case; while obviously not 100% analogous, I've done this myself with articles about Russian places, where I have prioritized the center over the municipality (see Samolva for an example), since the municipalities themselves don't seem to be that notable (not a lot of info beyond statistics). The same would likely apply here.
My idea was basically "all or nothing" i.e.
have Bascharage + Bascharage (commune) + Käerjeng

only have an article for the town of Bascharage, and cover both the former Bascharage commune and Käerjeng in the article about the town (I assume Bascharage is the center of Käerjeng).

However, I don't know if either option is a good idea, as they might go against GNG, and you are way more informed on the topic than I am.
Right now, I'd say redirect this to Bascharage, and do the same with Clemency (commune) > Clemency, Luxembourg. -- Kapulakone (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:56, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Suzu District, Ishikawa

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of Rwood128, as requested at WT:AFD:

I propose merging to Ishikawa because this district has been dissolved and incorporated into Ishikawa Rwood128 (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Japan. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep previously existing administrative divisions are still notable, and a look at the Japanese page suggests this can be expanded (on length only, I cannot read Japanese) SportingFlyer T·C 07:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:33, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

List of places of worship in Moorabool Shire

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

I propose merging to Shire of Moorabool because List of places of worship in Moorabool Shire doesn't reach WP:NLIST and a merge to the Shire article would not cause that page to be unduly long. For example, there is no reliable source that collects elements of this list as a set. Merging is hence preferred for context, short text and as an alternative to deletion. Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Geography. Klbrain (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply

I argue keep.

The article currently contains 33 or so entries, covering both active and former places of worship, and provides information on their locations, denominations and historical significance (the Victorian Heritage Database is presently undergoing maintenance but this information is to be added later). I believe it serves a useful navigational and encyclopedic purpose. Merging this information into Shire of Moorabool would introduce a substantial table into an article principally concerned with the municipality as a whole.

According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists:

"There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigational, or developmental purposes are often kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

Several of these churches/places of worship warrant a Wikipedia being made about them because they would be notable enough. This can then satisfy the list being "navigational". It already is informational, as every single listing has a name, it's geographic location and coordinates, a reference a notes section (intended for construction date, building additions, etc.) and if it is heritage-listed or not.

Unfortunately the tool is down to show all of the coordinates in openstreetmap, but it would therefore show that all of these churches fall within the boundary of the Shire of Moorabool.

For context, this list is part of a series of lists of places of worship by local government area in Victoria. They are not all finished, as this is the project I'm working on at the moment. (Refer to the others in the category list here: "Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in Australia" (they're in this list in the meantime until all the LGAs of Victoria are complete, then they will go in a separate section for the state of Victoria). These are in the pattern of how English places of worship have been sorted: "List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead" for example.

The Moorabool Shire Heritage Study lists several of these churches.

I would understand and be supportive of the merger if this was the only places of worship list of its kind in Victoria, but given the context of the broader project to document every local government area, I would prefer this kept as a separate page. The Shire of Moorabool page, whilst presently shorter compared to its other counterparts, has enough information to be expanded. I believe merging this information onto that page would make the article stray too further away from discussing about the municipality itself but rather the places of worship, which would likely take up 3/5 of the information or some similar fraction.

Thanks, 1geel0ng1 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep Well=structered, good pics, per above by 1geel0ng1 and as mentioned, there no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists.Djflem (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per above. You shall need broader consensus to do something about other similar lists too. Lorstaking (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
COMMENT If this article is going to be kept then I think it is only necessary to write such a listing for every county/shire in the world. Perhaps that is plausible in a relatively rural area in Australia but the listing for Montgomery County, Maryland would run well into the hundreds if not over a thousand, and it would always be out of date, with new house churches and the like opening or changing hands constantly. This is only slightly less plausible than a list of all the restaurants. I'm going to say that the lack of notability of most religious sites makes this kind of listing a backdoor to including them anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's necessary for every county/shire in the world and I agree that it could run into problems in a different country's context. However I believe this concept works across Australia and its local government areas.

The idea behind this broader project comes from how articles about places of worship have been split up in England (see List of places of worship in Tunbridge Wells (borough) as an example), which captures areas smaller than the counties of England. Essentially all the listings on both these British and Victorian lists so far (from what I've seen and what I've added) essentially exclusively include fixed places of worship as opposed to transient places. 1geel0ng1 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The list is helpful, but having it stand-alone is not warranted given how small the Shire of Moorabool page is. Taking the List of places of worship in Tunbridge Wells (borough) as an example, the 124 places of worship listed there would unbalance the potential target of Borough of Tunbridge Wells, which is why I would suggest keeping that list separate, but not doing the same for Shire of Moorabool. I note that the shire has a population of around 35k; whereas the Tunbridge borough has a population of around 125k. Klbrain (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

That is true regarding the population of the shire, and potentially several of the other shires that would be encountered on this project in Victoria. However, i believe that the Shire of Moorabool page could be greatly expanded, particularly (but not exclusively) in its history section, for it to not be considered as "small" as it presently is.

I would make the argument that because the Shire page is presently (in the view of some) small, adding the places of worship would unbalance it. Essentially my argument in this reply is that the Shire page can be expanded, and then the place-of-worship list would not seem as insignificant as it could potentially be seen, if left on its own. 1geel0ng1 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

The shire page has existed for more than 22 years; hopes for expansion are optimistic. If it does expand, the list can be WP:SPLIT from it quite easily. Klbrain (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

I hate to keep tossing cold water on this, but I live in a county that has a million people living in it. I have no idea how many places of worship there are but if it's less than three hundred, I'd be quite surprised; a couple thousand wouldn't be out of the question. I don't see how making such a list because the numbers are relatively few and thus manageable is somehow more meaningful. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Don't merge I don't think a merge would be appropriate, as copying this table over would be undue given the size, length, information, and images. I'm also unsure NLIST is met, but a website with a list of churches is a better sign than I initially thought when looking at the sources to see if this was OR. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:38, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - this is structured well, easy to read and has enough information to remain as its own page. Do not merge. CuriousOrbit84 (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Chak 87 EB

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

Don't find multiple reliable sources on the web. Fails GNG. Unsourced for a long time. SVcode(Talk) 23:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - WP:GEOLAND creates only a presumption of notability. Here the presumption is questionable - there is a location, that location is inhabited, but is that location really "Chak 87 EB"? Is it a "village"? If it is, then where is literally any reliable, non-mirror source at all to confirm this? Searching Google you will not see it - you see references to people using it as a postal address, but post-codes are not notable under WP:GEOLAND.

It is not far from the city of Qaboola. How do we know it is not basically just part of/administered from there?

The presumption under WP:GEOLAND is rebutted by the suspicion that this is not actually more than a postal-entity.

I'm sure some people will want to redirect to Qaboola. My issues with this is this is simply a numbered Chak (apparently this translates as "field") and it therefore makes no sense to redirect "field no. 87/EB" to a city as it is not a likely search-term. Additionally, redirects are often lazily recreated and deletion will prevent this.

However, in any case this should not be kept. FOARP (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply

As weird as this is, there are a series of places named Chak (number) EB in this area, as evidenced by Chak_(village). It's easily verifiable as a populated place on Google Maps with a number of identifiable schools, shops, mosques. Youtube video of the village as well. However I can't find an actual acceptable Wikipedia source, so we're in Schrödinger's village land - we know it's a village, but don't have anything reliable to say about it. SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
There's nothing that says this is simply a postal-area. A lot of stuff online is algorithmically produced. FOARP (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep The village had 4,892 residents according to the 2017 census, ("CHAK NO 087/E-B", 0000244, p.40) Kelob2678 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This does not substantiate it being a village, but instead just a census-taking unit (which are excluded from GEOLAND). Notably it lists both "CHAK NO 087/E-B PC" with a population of 6,620 and "CHAK NO 087/E-B" with a population of 4,892. There is also "CHAK 087/D" (which is part of "CHAK NO 085/D PC" apparently). Which is the subject article even about? FOARP (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This source says, Tehsils are revenue collection units which are further split up into Patwar Circles (patwar is an area under a patwari, the lowest revenue official). Each Patwar Circle (PC) encompasses 1-6 villages depending on the size of the landholding. This article is about 87EB. Chak 87D is another village. That the place is a village is backed by the title of the column, NAME OF MAUZA / DEH / VILLAGE / SETTLMENT. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That doesn't call it a village but instead uses a catch-all ("MAUZA / DEH / VILLAGE / SETTLMENT").

We should have learned from the whole Iranian Abadi issue that just because something is in a class that includes villages, doesn't mean that it is a village itself.

We should think long and hard before opening the door to mass-creation of thousands of articles about entities with no existence in reliable sources beyond listing in a table.

Finally: the details provided here (e.g., the population, which is listed as approximately 15k in the article) don't match those of the article, so are we talking about the same place? FOARP (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a rare instance where I'm convinced a place is notable just by looking at it on a map - it's a clear settlement, 500m square, in the middle of many other settlements 500m square on each side, with schools and a cemetery. We're not arguing over some road junction in West Virginia. At the same time, there is very little information on the internet about it, so I'm just noting this in the event this is deleted, someone can look at the AfD and feel free to re-create it if someone brings information to the table. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
My concern here is sourcing. If we're keeping it based on a single-line listing in a census-table, we really need to understand that may not indicate it actually exists as a town (or if there is a town, it isn't actually known by this name).

Let's look at some of the other listings in this table:
JAMIA ISLAMIA 0000256 - As far as I can tell, this is a building in Qabula. As far as I know based on other locations of the same name, "Jamia Islamia" mean literally "School of Islam".

MIR KHAN MAHMUNKA 0000670 - As far as I can tell this is an individual farm.

The term "Mauza", by the way, is defined in our article on the topic as follows:

"In contemporary Pakistan, a mouza is defined as "a territorial unit with a separate name, definite boundaries, and area precisely measured and divided into plots/khasras/survey numbers."[3] Each mouza has a cadastral map maintained in the land revenue record and, except in Sindh, each one has a Hadabast Number.[3] A mouza may be either a compact or a scattered unit, and there may be one or more settlements (a.k.a. abadis, bastis, dhoks, goths, tola, turf, hundi etc.) in the mouza's territory.[3] A mouza may also be unpopulated.[3]"

Which is to say that a Mauza is not necessarily a "legally recognised populated place" or a "village", but instead a land-revenue/cadastral unit. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This source says, two motorcycles collided with each other near Jamia Islamia village. MIR KHAN MAHMUNKA has a population of roughly 50, so it is not surprising that it is not that large on Google Maps (assuming you identified coordinates correctly). Kelob2678 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Chak 087 in the census is listed as a part of Arif Wala Tehsil. The place in the article is also said to be 10 km away from Arif Wala. Mauza/Deh is a group of villages, in our case, I assume "CHAK NO 087/E-B PC" is Mauza/Deh and "CHAK NO 087/E-B" is a village/settlement. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
"Mauza" is not a "group of villages". In Pakistan it is a tax-revenue/cadastral unit. Mauza don't even have to be populated. Since all of these units potentially has a "hadabast number", all of them could be Mauza. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That article also says, In Bangladesh, Pakistan and parts of India, a mouza or mauza (also mouja) is a type of administrative district, corresponding to a specific land area within which there may be one or more settlements ... The head of a mauza is styled as Mustajir, Pradhan or Mulraiyat, equivalent to Lord of the Manor in the manorial system ... Today it has become mostly synonymous with the gram or village.
Regarding Pakistan specifically
Mouza / Deh: It is a territorial unit with a separate name, definite boundaries, and area precisely measured and divided into plots / khasras / survey numbers. Each mouza is a revenue estate and has a cadastral map maintained in the land revenue record with a Hadbast Number except Sindh Province. Mouza, Deh, Village, Killi and Chak are the names commonly used for it. The term mouza / deh is widely used in the settled areas while the term village and or killi are used in the unsettled areas. There may be one or more settlements, abadies, basties, dhokes, goths, etc. in the territory of a mouza / deh. The mouzas / dehs may also have scattered inhabitation while there may be some mouzas without population as well.
So it is mostly synonymous with "village", villages obviously also can be unpopulated. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is not synonymous with "village" - it merely says that mouza can include villages, but that the two are not synonymous.

You are making the exact same mistake Carlossuarez46 made with Abadi, which has led to a clean-up that has now been ongoing for more than 5 years and required the deletion of more than 20,000 articles. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Mouza, Deh, Village, Killi and Chak are the names commonly used for it means that "it" has different names, such as "Mouza", "Deh", "Village", "Killi", and "Chak". I guess this is mostly because locals in Pakistan use various names for what in the West is known as "village". Kelob2678 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Common speech and official usage are two entirely different things. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
~~Delete~~ Draftify as a reasonable alternative until sufficient sourcing is located –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC) - SportingFlyer and FOARP both raise excellent points: This is obviously a Chak (village), a type of village that was established when the area was first irrigated and named with a formula based its water source. However we don't really have any useful information beyond that — Shrödinger's village indeed.reply

Sometimes there is a topic that we should probably have an article about, but the current state of available sourcing makes it impossible to do so. The only source that was ever added to the article was Famous Fix, which was removed as unreliable and only said "Chak 87 EB is a chak (village) in Pakpattan District, Punjab, Pakistan. It is located four kilometers northwest of Qaboola and roughly ten kilometers south of Arifwala. The village consists of Muhajirs." Population and caste information was added with zero sourcing and seems to contradict the several different population figures brought forth in this discussion, which brings me to my next point: We don't actually know whether the population counts correspond to the obvious large village/small town visible in the satellite view, a portion of it, or some census district in the surrounding area. If we do not have enough information to write a factual bare-minimum stub, we probably should not have an article at all. –dlthewave ☎ 15:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

There is a brief mention in an academic article: http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/zology/PDF-FILES/13-33_1_18.pdf and someone from there was arrested: The electoral roll shows two polling places with 2,730 voters:

There is definitely something here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply

There's no doubt that there's something there, but my concern is that we don't have enough verifiable information to write a factual article about it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Samil Beach

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

Not much reliable sources found on the web. Other language wikis may provide some sources but they are either inaccessible, or not sure if they are reliable. SVcode(Talk) 20:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Spanish language version clearly shows there are enough reliable sources for this to be a stand alone article. La Región even has a category set up for the beach: SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete - the only source offered is behind a paywall. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
That's ... not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Paywall is not a reason for deletetion VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Additional sources: Government source: There are so many sources here, it is a famous local beach. You just have to search in Spanish. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: substantial sources are available in Spanish, which can be used. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 00:45, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak keep: I expanded this article a little, with sources that SportingFlyer found and cited Google Maps. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:30, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Geography-related proposed deletions