This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Geography. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Geography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

watch

Kitt, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All of the references are only relevant if one assumes that "Kit" and ":Kitt" are the same place; we have no souirces that asserts that. But even with that assumption, the only thing we have, besides a 4th class post office and passing references to locate other things, is its inclusion in a list of failed villages in the county history. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Going through Jay County, Indiana#Further reading:

  The Lewis Biographical pp.474–475 has Kit as a post office run by one Henry F. West, with a grocery store there since 1884. The Bowen Biographical p.556 has Kit as a "town and postoffice" founded by Berkley G. Arthur and named after his dog. The Jay History v.1,p.247 has Kit as one of the "hamlets which still have kept their respective places on the map, though in some instances being little more than memories of the fond hopes entertained by their projectors". The Montgomery History has no Kit at all.

  Just as icing on the cake: de Colange 1884, p. 535, "Kit" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFde_Colange1884 (help) has

  Kit, Ind., p.o., Jay co.

  , 1889 Bullinger's Postal and Shipping Guide for the United States has Kit as a post-office on the Portland Railroad, a 1896 USPS directory has

  Kit, Jay ………… Ind

  , and no Lippincott's that I can find has any Kit at all.

  And none of them have a Kitt, which is presumably some foolish BGN false regularization of the dog's and post-office's name.

“

I'm not a post office in Indiana, Michael. Only Kit was.

”

• Given that this is a falsely named article that has false claims in its infobox and introduction and second section (which is original research attempting to square the article with the only proper source not saying anything about a Kitt), we might as well delete. The post offices and extinct hamlets of Jay County, per the only source cited for them being a history of Jay county that just gives a list of names, belong in Jay County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Colange, Leo (1884). The National Gazetteer: A geographical dictionary of the United States. London: Hamilton Adams & Company. LCCN 03009971. OCLC 4740756. (The National Gazetteer: A geographical dictionary of the United States at the Internet Archive)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay City, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

According to the county history, a town which was platted but which never took off. About all else I can find out about it was that there was once a Brethren church here, but it's long gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as there are few, if any, reliable sources that specifically talk about this topic. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

• As Mangoe said in the nomination, there not being any sources is not true. Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center, Jay County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Once again the evidence for this being a "village" is Baker's say-so, and he has proven to be a weak reed. There is a cemetery, because there is a church, and that is what is there now. I expected searching to be mostly fruitless and so it mostly was, and in particular I didn't turn up a handy county history. But I did turn up this account of the founding of this church (which is very handsome on the outside, BTW) which turns out to have been United Brethren, at least when it was started; the largest portion of the UB church was eventually folded into the UMC, and in any case I could not tell whether the church is still in use. Anyway, what's particularly interesting about the account is that while it indicates that there was once a schoolhouse at the location, it rather conspicuously says nothing about a town. This proves nothing of course, but I would remind newcomers that a schoolhouse is not proof of a town either. That's basically all I found; possibly someone can find out more. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two county histories, Montgomery 1864 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMontgomery1864 (help) and Jay 1922 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJay1922 (help), the latter incorporating the former. Both have the school and the church, but no village nor town. Nor is there a Center in Jay county listed amongst the 23 entries for Centre in Indiana alone in the 1902 Lippincott's. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montgomery, M. W. (1864). History of Jay County, Indiana. Chicago: Church, Goodman, & Cushing. (History of Jay County, Indiana at the Internet Archive)
  • Jay, Milton T. (1922). History of Jay County, Indiana: Including Its World War Record and Incorporating the Montgomery History. Historical Publishing Company. OCLC 607766443. (History of Jay County, Indiana: Including Its World War Record and Incorporating the Montgomery History at the HathiTrust Digital Library)

Gamble Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I prodded this due to being unable to find any sources discussing this location (only a couple mentioning the adjacent "Gamble Hill Drive" and "Gamble Hill Croft"). Another user expressed scepticism towards the completeness of my searching, noting that they found the location on Google Maps. I am listing it at AfD to see if anyone can find any sources that would establish notability. — Anonymous 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. — Anonymous 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Created more than a decade ago. Only three sentences total. No sourcing at all. — Maile (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The best that I can turn up are books on the mining industry (e.g. ISBN 9780118843553) that report that the quarry that you see here in Armley (which was a township and an ecclesiastical parish) was a mine into the Elland flagstone, and a couple of 1960s sources breathlessly announcing modernization programmes that report that it was flattened and built over by (subcontractors to) the Leeds Corporation in the 1960s. Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brice, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

THis appears to be a rail point; the only sure hit I get on this indcates a stockyard there attached to the railroad. Searching is severely clogged by the surname (especially her) and by a Civil War battle, so it's possible I missed something. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a station on the Nickel Plate Road (NKP) according to the railway books. I haven't found a source that definitively links it to Calvin S. Brice but I strongly suspect that that is the Brice you are looking for. I can find it on a map of the NKP in ISBN 9780801890024 which was published in 2003, so this one even has modern sources as a railroad stop. The coördinates in the article are off; actual maps place it to the south, right on the railway line, which is a pretty big hint. The best that I have for anything else is Milton T. Jay's 1922 History of Jay County, Indiana which merely has a William H. Hutchens opening a general store and running the post-office at Brice in 1899. I get nothing from the contemporary gazetteers. There's no Brice in the 1902 Lippincott's for example. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Ridge, Jasper County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

So here we hit yet another conundrum in Jasper County, which seems to have more than its share, mostly due to Mr. Gifford of railroad fame. And this is plainly a point on a railroad (though not on his), as I find a tax assessment for the depot. The problem is that leaving out a soil series name use, everything is either using this to locate various properties/people, or records a series of industrial/agricultural facilities at the spot, of which there are three at present: a trailer manufacturer which occupies the westernmost and oldest spot, an ag co-op which may be the descendant of the oldest documented business, and a bio-energy plant which is a relative newcomer. The irregular lake to the north is the remains of the fourth business, a quarry which was apparently opened up around 1960. Both the co-op and the quarry have secondary documentation; interestingly, I also found this ad for a property sale, a tile factory which clearly wasn't here, but the agent of the seller apparently was. Or at least, he picked up his mail there. But once again, there's no sign anyone ever lived here. There was what looks from the air like a farmstead directly at the RR crossing in 1957, but it disappears after that; another disappears into the quarry property. Otherwise it's all farm fields surrounding the industry. Can anyone find something that actually describes the place? Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with Surrey, Indiana (AfD discussion) we're still on page 74 of the cited county history, and the same sources for Surrey station that I have cited in that AFD discussion have Pleasant Ridge station on Monon Railroad#Section #1, between Rensselaer and McCoysburg. Comtemporary Lippincott's from the 1880s and Bullinger's 1961 Postal and Shippers Guide for the United States and Canada and Newfoundland have this as a post office as well. The 1880 Lippincott's also adds "on the Indianapolis, Delphi & Chicago Railroad, 4 miles E. of Rensselaer". Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoutsburg, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Let's start with one big error: the current nature preserve did not replace the "town"; it's southeast of what is supposed to have been the town site, as is clear as soon as you look at GMaps. OTOH I can't find any evidence for this as anything but a rail station. The little that was on the road by the tracks disappeared when the subdivision went in south of it, and there was never anything on the north side. All the documentation I find relates to the station/post office, regardless of the spelling. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Baker says that George W. Stout founded a "village". Hamilton's and Darroch's A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana on p.74 gives the other spelling, Stoutsberg, as station on the Three I's Railroad (the erstwhile Indiana, Illinois & Iowa Railroad Company) between Wheatfield and DeMotte. Graydon M. Meints's Indiana Railroad Lines has Stoutsburg on the LS-WK (c.f. Forest City, Indiana (AfD discussion)) and that's the station name in the 1899 A.B.C. Pathfinder Shipping and Mailing Guide. It's still listed in Bullinger's 1962 Postal and Shippers Guide for the United States and Canada and Newfoundland. Only Baker says village, but I have sources for post-office and railway station going into the middle 20th century.

  The preserve, per the 1995 Directory of Indiana's Dedicated Nature Preserves published by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, is Stoutsberg Savanna.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A station with passing siding on the ex-Monon line; the siding remains, but whatever station may have housed the post office is gone. Not a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The cited county history is indeed discussing stations on the Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railroad, currently redlinked in Monon Railroad. Baker says that it was a post office. Graydon M. Meints's Indiana Railroad Lines has Surrey as "MON-A" i.e. on the 1st subdivision of the Monon Line. Contemporary railway shipping guides (e.g. ABC Pathfinter Shipping and Mailing Guide) have "Surrey, Jasper, Ind". It was a railway station, alright. It should be listed between Fair Oaks and Rensselaer in Monon Railroad#Section #1, but currently is not. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rail station, not a town. Rural stops like this were common in the days before autos, that doesn't make them a "community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moody, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Once again, a highway map and Baker are our only sources for a blank spot on the map, though there is a cemetery nearby. Searching is hugely clogged by the investment advisors and by the general commonness of the name, but I did get one hit. Tales of spooky happenings, however, are a poor substitute for actual information about a town; and as it happens, they show a complete lack of awareness that there may have been a settlement here. That leaves us with the post office, which of course did not need a town to exist. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (edit: Changed my mind, see below) This was a tough one. I feel as though this just barely meets WP:GEOLAND. It is a populated, recognized place, but not census designated as far as I could tell.
  • Moody Lights
  • Moody recorded in a place names book
  • Moody on GNIS
  • Discussion of Moody in a forum (obviously not a source, but might speak to notability)
• I would be inclined to leave this, as there may be physical sources like old newspapers available only to residents of Indiana to expand the article. It does seem to be established that there was in fact a village here, at least in 1893, and it has long been the focus of folklore in the area. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "place names book" is Baker, per the nomination. The GNIS is not a reliable source and is exactly why we are here with all of these false articles in the first place. And as you say, people with pseudonyms writing utter drivel and making up ghost stories on a WWW forum, is not a source. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• See User talk:Drmies#Onions! for the truth about Moody. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's redirect Moody to this instead.

    I understand now the rationale behind deleting the page. I was apprehensive as there does seem to be shreds of anecdotal evidence about Moody but I agree now that it doesn't really belong. I don't know what's going on in Indiana, either this was a 20th century ARG or there's something in those onions. Very strange.

    Would it be appropriate for me to edit my post to change my vote, or am I expected to keep it "locked in" after I vote? New to participating in AfD. Regards, Kylemahar902 (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a discussion, not a vote. We can all change our minds. Usually one uses <s>...</s> on the boldface words. I've expanded Monon Railroad#Section #1 a bit to demonstrate again how we can still handle these railroad stops without having to give them articles (although some on the list are now CDPs). Let us hope that Drmies approves the submission. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We know it was a self-named post office along the railroad and nothing else except some ghost stories. This is not enough to base an article on. Reywas92^Talk 03:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went a little Moody-mad looking into this after this discussion. I did actually find a railroad timetable listing Moody as a stop in 1917, as well as newspaper articles listing Granville Moody. Still unsatisfied, I actually reached out to the Jasper County Historical Society, who had this to say: "There never was a town called Moody. The Moody General Store did have a post office in 1911-1925. It was on Moody Road in an area called Pleasant Grove. However, I did find a map from the Indiana State Library showing Moody at a place indicating Rural Delivery Service, Post Office Service in 1909." At this point I've almost collected enough information that I could write an article just based on the confusion over whether or not Moody exists (joking). Just wanted to let the Moody fans know the resolution to the mystery. (edit: also see this fun article debunking the so-called Moody Lights. Kylemahar902 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewiston, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another GNIS addition from a state highway map, with Baker claiming a platting date of 1901. Well, OK, but did anything come of that? Until 2012 the aerials show literally nothing at this T intersection; the ag machinery supply place that's there now first shows up two years later. Searching is dominated by chance juxtapositions given that Idaho usually is right before Indiana in a state by state listing, which Google didn't help by insisting that Idaho and Indiana were the same word until I told it to stop that. Right now without other sources there;s no reason to believe this place was ever built upon until this century. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• See User talk:Drmies#Onions! for the truth about Lewiston. Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forest City, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have to wonder exactly what is in the "WPA files" to which Baker refers (and for that matter, what sources they used), as other than the spot on the map (which sat next to a NYC line and seems to consist of a single house in the trees) I can find no trace of this place. I get lots of hits, as Lippicott's for instance lists something like a dozen different "Forest City"s, but they are all in other states. Maybe this was a rail spot, but I just get nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• An 1893 Rand McNally gazetteer says "Forest City, Jasper, N.W., Ry"; which translates to a railway stop, with no post office nor express office, in the north-west of Jasper county. Checking Graydon M. Meints's Indiana Railroad Lines (IUP, 2011, ISBN 9780253223593) confirms that this was a stop on the "LS-WK", which from another table in the book is the Kankakee, Indiana branch of the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway.

  I can only turn up this meagre information about the railway station, everything else being the other "Forest City"s. The 1869 Lippincott's has 5 of them, none this one. By 1893, Lippincott's has 14 of them, still none this one. So: late 19th century railway station.

  The "WPA files" are, as Baker explains at the end of the book, the "Manuscript Files of the Federal Writers' Project, Cunningham Memorial Library, Indiana State University, Terre Haute", the history of which is explained by R. K. O’Neill here; so that's where one would have to look.

  Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I know what the WPA files are; it's their content and sourcing that it would be nice to see. I am not in a position to go to Terre Haute and rummage through them. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently we can get them on the 'phone if we know the area code. Who you gonna call? Special Collections! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonexistent place. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Back-added to GNIS from a state highway map, and can we have some substantial information please? It's another blank spot on the map and it's late for a 4th class PO, but other than Baker I have nothing else on this. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Baker says a village founded in 1897, which is going to rule out almost all 19th century sources and start hitting the copyright wall on information. There's one third of a 1916 Lippincott's at Lippincott's new gazetteer at the Internet Archive but neither of its two "Laura"s are this. The same goes for the 1906 Lippincott's new gazetteer at the Internet Archive.

  The Lewis Publishing 1899 Biographical History of Tippecanoe, White, Jasper, Newton, Benton, Warren and Pulaski Counties, Indiana (I checked volumes 1 and 2.) hits the right county and timeframe, and has lots of wives and daughters named Laura, but no places. The same goes for Darroch's 1916 A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana at the Internet Archive.

  However, if someone wants to write about The Onion Belt otherwise formally known as the Chicago & Wabash Valley Railroad, owner one Benjamin J. Gifford (after whom Gifford, Indiana is named), you'll find Laura as a dot on a railway station diagram, but no prose about it, in Elmer Griffith Sulzer's Ghost Railroads of Indiana (IUP, 1998, ISBN 9780253334831). There's plenty to say about The Onion Belt, and contrary to list of unused railways Sulzer documents how it was used; for shipping onions, no less.

  All of the other false "unincorporated communities" at Moody, Indiana, Gifford, Indiana, and McCoysburg, Indiana are all railway stops on the diagram, and in prose Sulzer explains that our Asphaltum, Indiana article should correctly be titled Crescent, Indiana because it changed name, before it died.

  Uncle G (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonexistent place as per Uncle G's research. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, enjoy User talk:Drmies#Onions! here, too. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I find no evidence that there was an Egypt-town to attach the cemetery to; all hits I get are for the cemetery itself, including all three hits in the county history. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Only 2 hits in the Lewis and Darroch history. The third one is in Carpenter Township. So I have even less than in the nomination. ☺ It was somewhat tricky to search the gazetteers when the names are "Egypt" and "Jordan" and "Welsh", but nothing turned up for them in Jasper County. And the source purported to support most of this has vanished. The Indiana Genealogical Society does not publish it nor even list it any more.

  One wonders why, apparently source in hand saying that this is a cemetery, article writers still believe that a cemetery is a populated place and a community. Exactly what sort of cemetery is that? Anyway, this one is pretty much undocumented, the only locatable source (Lewis and Darroch) not actually discussing it itself and the set of personal handwritten notes claimed to document it no longer findable or possibly even in existence.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A cemetery is not a populated place, thus automatically failing WP:GEOLAND. And the only source that could possibly identify this as a notable cemetery per WP:GNG is a dead link. Nothing else found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Park, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As far as I can determine from the aerials, this is subdivision from the late 1950s; it's certainly all there is now, and I got no useful Ghits (Deer Park is not quite as common as Springfield but...). Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have come up completely empty on this. No sources at all. And none in the article. Nothing in relation to DeMotte. Nothing in any histories. Nothing in any gazetteer except the one that we know to be faulty. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G; unverifiable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aix, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Rather a "got nuthin" case: searching produced no helpful county history, and other hits where chance juxtapositions of "Indiana" and one of the several French cities with "Aix" as part of the name. As to the uncited claim, the church closed in 2022 and stands in complete isolation; the vet is actually down the road south a ways and advertises itself as being in Rensselaer. So I'm not finding any testimony to this spot other than a post office. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is stated in newspapers as a location, e.g. [1][2]. This is technically a source on the town's name, though... not particularly useful. Likewise with this. Given the attestations of this as a place I'd prefer a redirect to Union Township, Jasper County, Indiana#Unincorporated towns. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It gets a tantalizing contextless mention in volume 2 of Hamilton's and Darroch's A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana (A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana at the Internet Archive). There is no clue from that what it is. The 19th century railway and shipping guides list Rensselaer as the nearest station, so it's not a railway station. But an 1896 USPS directory confirms Baker's statement that this was a post office. I ignored the AuthorHouse book. But Wood 1976, pp. 21–22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood1976 (help) gives Aix it's own section, tracing what it calls the "tiny hamlet of Aix" to land records of Thomas Monnett in 1873–1875, and that seems to be a fairly decent source; better than what we often get. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood, Mary Elizabeth (1976). "Aix". French Imprint on the Heart of America: Historical Vignettes of 110 French-related Localities in Indiana and the Ohio Valley. Unigraphic.

Wegan, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Here we have another puzzle. There is no question at all that people called this place "Wegan"; the church still does. But that church and the short-lived post office are the only evidence I can find. The church is now isolated and has been so as far back as I can see; the post office came into being late and lasted only four years, closing earlier than most in the region, which leads me to surmise that the demand wasn't there, and therefore neither was the population. Baker only mentions the post office, and the county history we have is dated before the post office opened, and makes no mention of it nor of anyone named Wegand. I'm inclined to chalk this one up as jsut a post office, but maybe others can do better. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The history of St. Paul's Lutheran Church at Wegan may be traced from February 6, 1854. During that year several families then attending worship services at St. John Evangelical Church discussed the idea of forming a new congregation. Those families had moved and settled in the northern regions of Grassy Fork Township. Pastor Johann Sauer led the group in its efforts to bring about this change. On March 17, 1857 seventeen men signed the constitution to complete the process. The Lutheran congregation at Wegan became the second group to form its own church. Indeed, it was the second to be spawned from the mother (Sauers) in Jackson County.

  — Noblitt, Loren W. (1997). A History of Jackson County Churches. Jackson County Historical Society., p. 131

  Noblitt then goes on to talk about schooling consolidating in Brownstown in 1966. Bowen's 1904 Biographical Record of Bartholomew and Jackson Counties, Indiana on p.741 mentions "the Wegan church, in Grassy Fork township, southeast of Brownstown, the official center of Jackson county" and on p.728 talks of someone buying land "near the present hamlet of Wegan, in Grassy Fork township". Sad to say, the only other decent-appearing source turned out to say on its cover that it was a work of fiction. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Tintin locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Fraternities and sororities, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fraternities and sororities?? Why? -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We have The Adventures of Tintin#Settings and a couple of articles on fictional locations in the series such as Syldavia and Borduria. Purely cataloguing which locations appear in which stories as is done here doesn't seem helpful, however. It might be possible to write a stand-alone article about how locations are used in the series based on sources analysing that subject, but the bulk of this article is basically just a bunch of WP:RAWDATA. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. Goustien (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is simply a mass of WP:RAWDATA without any reference to how these places tie into the Tintin series, and the way they are depicted. TH1980 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: covered as a set in https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/geographie-territoires/les-geographies-de-tintin/; with certain regions also addressed as a set in various sources, including https://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/l-arabie-de-tintin,1628 https://www.topito.com/top-pays-imaginaires-tintin All the countries are listed in Géopolitique. Atlas des 160 lieux stratégiques du monde. (2018). Editions Ellipses There are plenty of other sources on the topic in Tintin dictionaries. So meets WP:NLIST, and is a good SPLIT. -Mushy Yank. 19:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is a very good source, but someone needs to use it to move this article beyond a pure plot summary. Until then this can be redirected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Belgium. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep needs to be better sourced, but does appear to have been covered as a set by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The OR delete votes are incorrect - while there's a chance a list item or two might be OR, since I haven't reviewed the sources completely, this list has clearly been the topic of secondary coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There is a great deal of interest in Herge's choice of settings and the way he depicts them, and especially how that changed over time, which material could be used to expand the paragraph in the main article. But this listing is largely trivia, and it doesn't do anything towards that understanding. To be blunt, it's the sort of east stamp-collecting list article that WP authors write instead of grappling with the real work of writing a coherent analysis. Looking at the British sublist, for instance, most of it has to do with The Black Island, which, duh, is set there, and the rest are incidental and lack context. There are many entries which are only passing mentions, again without any context. Yeah, sure, you can make such an article, but really, the actually useful list information already appears in a list of the works themselves, because it's the larger setting of each— Russia, America, Peru, Arabia, and so forth— that are worth "listing". Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TH1980. This is mostly unsourced WP:OR, and redundant with The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. It's not tenable to create separate lists of every scene from a piece of fuction. A redirect or selective merge may be an acceptable compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is mostly unsourced and potentially contained OR. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Prhartcom: Goustien (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings per WP:ATD. This list is mostly unsourced WP:RAWDATA, but it may potentially become fixed into a nice paragraph in the main article. Archrogue (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ribus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

(no vote) list based on deleted nonnotabe term, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu --Altenmann >talk 08:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to List of ribus in Indonesia, to reflect its content. I didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu but am not convinced that Ribu as a term is not notable - see 2009 coverage of the Indonesian list and Austrian coverage of the list as examples. PamD 10:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PamD: Actually, both titles are misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials"; see better move suggestion below. --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  New, sourced, section on ribus now created. PamD 12:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does not change the fact that "ribu" remains personal endeavor of Quinn that belongs only to his webpage and should not be advertised in Wikipedia. We already established lack of notability of the term. Imagine my dad fisherman starts classifying fish by their color and publishes the catalog "Chromatography of fish". Heck, we already have real articles about real fringe scientists, and theirs opinions are not propagated in other wikipedia aricles. --Altenmann >talk 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's been covered more widely and there's now his book, and a forthcoming magazine article. PamD 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why ribus in Indonesia not mountains in Indonesia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the term wasn't notable at AfD then this isn't either.Golikom (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" as that appears to be the notable topic here... I can certainly find enough coverage of Indonesian mountains for this to be a stand-alone list but I can't find enough coverage of Indonesian "ribus" to get anywhere close. This would also match the other entries at Category:Lists of mountains of Asia, as it stands now this is a weird outlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia" per Horse Eye's Back. Also because the title is misleading, because the page lists "ribus" and "specials" --Altenmann >talk 17:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a title which reflects "prominence", such as List of mountains of Indonesia by prominence. There will be many very high significant peaks in Indonesia which are not included in this list because you don't need to drop 1,000m between them and the next peak. See the titles in Category:Lists of mountains by prominence: many includes "ultras" in their title, and a "ribu" is the same kind of categorisation, just using 1,000m rather than the "ultra" cutoff of 1,500m. To call this List of mountains of Indonesia would be misleading. Either List of rebus of Indonesia or List of mountains of Indonesia by prominence. There seems to be no one list of Indonesian mountains. I have tweaked the lead of this list to clarify its scope, downplaying the little-known (as yet?) term rebus and clarifying prominence. PamD 18:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can be included, we're discussing the core topic... Not what is literally on the page this second (that is nearly completely irrelevant in an AfD discussion) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your "they" is. To include all the mountains of Indonesia would be a very different list. This is a list of mountains in Indonesia with prominence >1000m, whether called "ribus" or not, with a selection of other noteworthy peaks (the "spezials"). PamD 19:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the content will be different, but thats where the notable topic is... It does currently appear to contain the large majority of notable mountains in Indonesia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list is a list of mountains of Indonesia with 1000m prominence (plus a few), whether or not they are referred to as ribus. That is very different from a list of all Indonesian mountains above a certain height: this list is complete, but would be very incomplete if it was a "list of mountains of Indonesia". Wikipedia already has many ists of prominent mountains by place, and this is one of them, currently misnamed. PamD 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that this list is complete? It is almost entirely unsourced Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm WP:AGFing. There is a complete list of the 1000m prominence Indonesian mountains, plus the "specials", at https://www.gunungbagging.com/ribu-categories/all-the-ribus/ . PamD 23:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF does not apply to content, WP:V does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be a list based on a quasi-notable neologism. I don't care if the content is saved as there is a list of mountains with heights, but we shouldn't have this specific list. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  List is based on a clearly defined topographic measure which could be called P1000s. (Plus the "specials" which seem a bit of a distraction). P1500s are better known as "ultras", but other lists exist - eg List of P600 mountains in the British Isles. PamD 23:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "List of mountains in Indonesia". Azuredivay (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of gulfs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Is this article defining a gulf (as distinguished from a sea) by actual features or by its standard geographical name in the English-speaking world?? Georgia guy (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I have made no attempt to determine if this meets WP:NLIST, deletion is not cleanup. It could be properly sourced and possibly merged into Gulf, which is a stub. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Gulf is absurdly short, the list should be there rather than a separate page. Whether only those titled gulf are listed or there's some flexibility of inclusion of bays or whatnot, I see no basis for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit history and deletion log reveal that this used to be our gulf (geography) article, although there was some history swapping going on in 2010 that confuses matters. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given to delete. This is clearly a valid navigational and information list article. Dream Focus 21:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per WP:NLIST. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no reason given to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities, towns and villages in the Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article only lists the cities and atoll capitals, which List of islands of the Maldives already do. This article could be redirected to that article since it fits WP:ATD-R. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be best to merge the articles? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• :Why is that? Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a list that's clearly a part of an established set of articles. Just because it's duplicative doesn't mean we can't have it - someone looking for this list may not know to go to the List of islands of the Maldives. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Administrative divisions of the Maldives, which already has prose about cities and atolls and tables with all of the atoll capitals and cities. I see no need for this duplicative page (there is nothing to even merge it seems), and a redirect and updated links will help users find this. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool City Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article relates to the areas governed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. Most of its content also appears either on that article or on the articles for Merseyside and Cheshire, the two geographic counties it spans. I can't find any sources that refer to the Liverpool City Region that don't relate to the work of the Combined Authority. Other CAs which are named after existing geographic areas have articles for both the CA and the region (eg East Midlands and East Midlands Combined County Authority, Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Combined Authority) but these have different boundaries and/or histories. Others (eg York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority) don't have any article about the area they govern.

I feel this is confusing, tautological and illogical. I'm not even sure a merge is worthwhile, unless there is any information not repeated elsewhere on Wikipedia. Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, United Kingdom, and England. Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I was surprised when I saw this was nominated as an AfD, but your arguments make sense.

  This article seems to just repeat what is in the LCRCA piece. Deleting this article and having 'Liverpool City Region' redirect to the LCRCA article would be a good solution. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did wonder what Orange sticker was proposing to do with all of the geographic information about the region that was in the article, until I read Liverpool City Region#Geography. That said, there is better sourced stuff here than in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority article, starting with the very first source in this article, describing what the area encompasses, something that is completely unsourced in the latter article. Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Uncle G is correct the Geography section is unsourced - I am talking about the greater combination of demography and geography, not that specific section. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see multiple references to Liverpool City Region as a geographical area different from the authority in books, mostly books on Geography such as "Rescaling Urban Development." It's clear that the entity's article - which also needs cleanup - is non-geographic, while this article is geographic, and the fact that Merseyside/Cheshire have duplicative content is fine as there's an odd overlap of local authority areas in England. See sources such as this for a geographical discussion of the region. Hence, it passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue urban development is a political subject and so this relates to the political entity. I'm not a geographer so I'm not an expert in what makes a geographic place, but you won't find the LCR on navigational maps, I can't find any sources that talk about its culture, history, natural features and fwiw anecdotally no ones says they're from the Liverpool City Region or they're going to travel to the Liverpool City Region. Orange sticker (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter that you can't find sources about culture, history, et cetera, since it's a combined authority area which encompasses a bunch of places which would contain those features and not a city. The combined authority area has received significant coverage, especially in scholarly articles. I agree there may be scope to merge the two articles, but it's clearly a dedicated topic in sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've stated below, the only independent references I can find to the term all relate to the work and remit of the LCRCA itself. Without the LCRCA, it doesn't exist. I know the same could be said for many Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom but I think it's possible to talk about say, Birkenhead the place and Birkenhead the parliamentary constituency as two different concepts. Most places existed before Parliament and will probably exist long after! While there are several academic papers which focus on the area, these tend to be sociological, economical and political and relate to its shared governance. I think if this became a redirect to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority it would not create any confusion. Orange sticker (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see what you are saying. I think it is quite confusing because the Liverpool city region is not Merseyside and it is not Cheshire but it involves both counties so it is an individual geography of itself. This article describes how it came in to being because it predates the combined authority. The combined authority came afterwards so the LCR had a history before it. I think this article is a lot older than the authority because it came first if that makes sense. The Liverpool city region has also been covered in books. I think it is complicated to people outside of England who need these things explaining especially so it makes sense to have a page for the region and a page for the authority. Mike 2A02:C7C:CAA3:E400:B5E0:509A:FFEC:BA3E (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article seems to have originated in 2005 under the name Greater Merseyside[3], then was renamed in 2008 to Liverpool City Region[4]. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority page began as a redirect to this one in 2013[5] when the page looked like this[6].

  Orange sticker (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're correct that without the LCRCA, this doesn't exist, but that has no bearing on whether this is notable. There are scholarly articles which review the place: [7] [8] [9] [10] and books [11] and in books [12] which is all clearly SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @SportingFlyer that the term and the definitions of the area is widely used in scholarly and governmental sources which is clear WP:SIGCOV and shows notability for the term and area Knowledgework69 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi, I am not registered on wikipedia but I know that anyone can contribute and have been following. Could I have my comment considered by the moderator. Visit Liverpool does refer to the Liverpool City Region as a geographic location. There is an interactive map for visiting the Liverpool city region and an invitation to visit on their website...at Plan your visit to Liverpool | VisitLiverpool

  The LCR map is here https://www.visitliverpool.com https://www.visitliverpool.com/explore/liverpool-city-region-interactive-map/liverpool-city-region-pdf-map

  Google News also contains thousands of references to the Liverpool city region as a geographic location. The search results can be found with all references to the 'mayor' omitted for convenience. The local news station Local TV Liverpool on Freeview as well as many news outlets also refer often to the LCR as a place when not talking about politics. You can search their channel on Youtube. I can understand any confusion but I think this article should stay. Thank you. Mike 2A02:C7C:CAA3:E400:91FD:139:1C96:8CBF (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  VisitLiverpool.com is a website of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority - see the copyright at the bottom of every page. When I performed the same search omitting "mayor" and "combined authority" I only found a couple of listicles[13][14] from the same promotional magazine (that the LCRCA advertises in, so not sure that would count as independent) that weren't about the business or politics of the LCRCA. Orange sticker (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh right, I am not sure why you cannot find any sources that's strange, the Liverpool city region has received significant coverage, it's mentioned on the news all the time. It is also used by businesses unrelated to the Authorities. It is on Companies House just as an example and when you google search it there are hundreds of results. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search?q=liverpool+city+region 2A02:C7C:CAA3:E400:B5E0:509A:FFEC:BA3E (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Liverpool City Region is a geographical area, governed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. The term Liverpool City Region is used widely both locally see Liverpool echo article ^[1] as well as nationally and internationally. It would be inappropriate to delete this article when its use is widespread as well deleting it could also cause confusion for example the Mayor, is not the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority but rather the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, if that region does not exist how can they be the Mayor of it? if you catch my point, it would create confusion.

The Liverpool City Region is also sometimes interchangeably used with the Liverpool Metropolitan Area, however Liverpool City Region is the correct term for the region encompassing the 5 boughs of Merseyside + the Unitary Bourgh of Halton in Cheshire. I see no reason to delete an article that perfectly explains this area.

Finally the ONS list the Liverpool City Region as census area (Please note the difference between a combined authority in the context of the organisation e.g the LCRCA which has a constitution, officers etc and the legal area it governs over the LCR) ^[2] the same way in which a Unitary authority is an area separate from any Unitary Authority body that might be established to cover services in the area.

I would also like to make a quick sidenote away from government definitions, Due to the unique nature of the LCR i think its also prudent to help avoid confusion that this article remains up. as it serves as the Greater Manchester to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority or the Greater London to the Greater London Authority, in lieu of it being a county wide body, it shows the Geographical area that the LCRCA governs over. Knowledgework69 (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further Information: Articles where also made for the same region for West of England Combined Authority - West of England and Tees Valley Combined Authority - Tees Valley. So i don't see why the Liverpool City Region area needs to be deleted Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Further Information: Please see Merseytravel, the area served by Merseytravel and Merseyrail is the Liverpool City Region, not Merseyside or Cheshire, it would be confusing if this article was removed especially considering Merseytravel is being renamed to Transport for the Liverpool City Region (TfLCR) later this year ^[3] Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merseytravel doesn't cover Halton (at least you can't use a saveaway there) but it does serve parts of Cheshire and West Lancashire. On a tangent, Cheshire is applying for devolution and may want Halton back! Orange sticker (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly yes Merseytravel functions do cover Halton, and halton councillors do serve on the Mersey travel Comittee of the LCRCA, ^[4][5] Secondly on a “Cheshire CA” Your getting into hypotheticals there, as it currently stands Halton is part of the Liverpool City Region, as well as this towns such as Runcorn have always been linked with Liverpool, coupled with this the current Deputy Mayor of the LCR is the Leader of Halton Council, so I find it unlikely that they would join a Cheshire CA, again that is purely hypothetical. Knowledgework69 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Merseytravel's most recent statement of accounts: Merseytravel is the transport delivery body for the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA), providing transport services across Liverpool, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton and the Wirral. Merseytravel also provides strategic transport advice to Halton. Seems like residents of Halton get to elect people that can serve on a transport body that doesn't serve them. Orange sticker (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point about saveaways and it shows that geography, economics and politics don't always align. Also Agree with Knowledgework69 above, the article should be kept due to the LCR's coverage and recognition in academic and a plethora of other sources. It is not just a political invention, it is also an economic area which describes the economic interaction and connection between Liverpool and surrounding areas. It is also increasingly a cultural area with organisations like The Culture Network LCR CIC, promoting cultural co-operation across the LCR (https://culturenetwork.co.uk) which have nothing to do with the Combined Authority. Businesses in the area use the LCR to promote themselves, it's also used for marketing and in general conversation in lots of different contexts both formal and informal. Human geography is concerned with topics such as this and it often transcends politics. It is also poor timing when devolution is ongoing. Only today, six new Combined Authorities have been announced which is going to turn English geography on its head. The Liverpool city region is very mature and established within the subject of both geography and politics and should stay. Thank you Mike

Broad, sweeping, statement - I believe the historical origin of the split articles is not because of any fundamental reason that there's some difference between the LCRCA and LCR (as if the "political entity" and "area" is fundamentally different things at this granular level) but because a lot of the "City Region" articles started before the Combined Authority articles were created. I'm broadly of the opinion UK articles make a bad habit of splitting political entities from the specific boundaried area of land that they are responsible for when there's no good reason to (i.e. nothing has happened distinguish the two in a meaningful way). Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maumee, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A "no there there" spot of which I can only find a passing reference to a store here in an old history of the county, and this book tends to have paragraphs on real towns. Other than that searching is drowned out by hits on the river. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The sum total that I can find, thanks to Baker listing the alternative name and apart from all of the "Maumee, Jackson, Ind." post-office directory listings, is a 1988 history of Jackson published by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana that says:

  Another group of families settled at Findley's Mill on Salt Creek, later known as Maumee.

  Looking for more about Findley's Mill just leads to geological reports of sandstone in Salt Creek Township, Jackson County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Us this another ghost town? Bearian (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I have nothing saying that it is any more than a post office, which is what the Baker source in the article really only supports. The 1886 Brant & Fuller History of Jackson County, Indiana uses the spelling Finley's but adds no more information to the sentence quoted above. It even conveys less, as it does not say "Mill" or "Mills", just "Finley's" as if we are to know, a century and a bit later, what that means. It went without saying in 1886, and now it is, as far as I can find, lost to history. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Apparently the publishers of the Seymour [IN] Tribune in September 1931 thought there was a place called Maumee, Indiana, as exemplified by THIS news short. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I challenge you to tell us what Maumee is, other than a handwaved "place", from that source. The basic "Maumee is …" introduction to an article. You'll find it difficult, as the source does not say. And is it talking about the Robertson Cemetery in Jackson or the Robertson Cemetery in Jefferson? Interestingly, the old 1980s GNIS coördinates for the Robertson Cemetery in Jackson are 38°32′30″N 86°00′08″W / 38.5418°N 86.0021°W / 38.5418; -86.0021 (Robertson Cemetery) and the current ones in the National Map are 38°54′18″N 86°00′21″W / 38.9051°N 86.0058°W / 38.9051; -86.0058 (Robertson Cemetery), neither of which are near this purported Maumee at 39°01′17″N 86°15′42″W / 39.0213°N 86.2616°W / 39.0213; -86.2616 (Maumee), not even on the same river as Maumee. The modern closer cemetery location is still 26km distant from where Maumee is purported to be.

    I have "Maumee was a post office.". ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I've said on other discussions for these nonexistent places, if we have to do this much digging through gray literature to find whether or not a place was a "village" or "station" or "post office", and after all that still can't determine where it even was (i.e. WP:V), we don't have enough information for an article. The article creator certainly didn't do this much work, so why should we? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This made me laugh. I spent way too much time trying to find Moody, although I did solve the mystery in the end. Can you imagine trying to be a geographer in Indiana? I fully support getting rid of all of these random post office/railroad stop articles and condensing them into one page so we don't have to think about this anymore. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per above discussion. While in theory, a ghost town can be included, this one doesn't pass. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conologue, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be an early post office back-added to the topos from an old map. Need more evidence that that of an actual settlement as these maps recorded post offices as well as actual towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Baker (p.101) says that this was a post office, and warns that we might have to search for Conlogue. So I did. The printed 1980s version of the GNIS database records this as "Conologue Post Office", which is a bit of a clue in itself. I found Conlogue in Jackson in an 1869 government listing of post offices.

  But those of you fresh from the discussion of Fleming, Indiana (AfD discussion) will enjoy what I found after that, which was Conlogue in a table on p.65 of the 1876 Monitor Guide to Post Offices and Railroad Stations in the United States and Canada which says "(R.R. name, Fleming's)". So this is the earlier name for the post office by Fleming's station on the O&M.

  But other than the shipping guides and post office directories: I found nothing.

  Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Conologue and Fleming. Thanks for your effort, Uncle G, and if we have to do this much digging to find whether a place actually existed, and there is still uncertainty, then we don't have enough info for an article. Essentially a WP:V fail. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets WP:GEOLAND: a quick search of Newspapers.com shows that it had a school up to at least 1947, a cemetery, and a church in the 1960s and 1970s. There were still burials at Conologue Cemetery up to 2021. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, then where is it? The church is not at the location that GNIS gives for the "populated place", and looking at where the church was on the topos (and there is a building at that location appearing in the aerials up to 1960; it disappears before the next one in 1983), it sits in isolation; there's no town there. Unless the news clip says, there's no indication where the school was, and in any case neither schools nor churches require towns to exist. Again, it's a familiar issue: without direct evidence of a town from people talking about it as such, there's nothing inconsistent with this being a locale with no distinct village/town. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article from 1986 [15] explains where Conologue school house, church and cemetery were (are, in the case of the cemetery). Looking at the sources again, I find none that describe Conologue as a town or village - at most they say "Conologue community". They all say things like "Conologue school, Redding township". I am now !voting to Merge this article (and the Fleming one) to Redding Township, Jackson County, Indiana - and editing that to list Unincorporated Communities (like Conologue) or to list schools, churches, etc (there are plenty of newspaper articles that do just that - eg, they published scores for each school in Jackson County, by township). There are sources which can be included in the Redding article to provide information about its facilities over time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to add other sources here, so they are available to add either to this article, if kept, or to Redding Township, Jackson County, Indiana. A 1963 report of a fire refers to "the old Conologue school" [16]. Sisters Eva and Phoebe Brooks Quinn reminisce in 1990 about Fleming and Conologue [17]. School attendance records in Jackson county, 1932, part 1 [18] and part 2 [19]. 100 year old Lydia Nichter tells kindergarten students about Conologue school etc [20]. Schools in Jackson county listed by townships (Redding and Carr) and scored, part 1 [21] and part 2 [22]. Jackson County Fair display about old schools, 1995, part 1 [23] and end of article [24].
      • I strongly disagree with an "unincorporated community" list in the township, simply because these aren't unincorporated communities. That's just sweeping the mess elsewhere. Yes, listing schools and churches is the way to go; and in other states this is what the (19th century) sources themselves do, too. In Kansas, for example, the government reports have lists of schools and churches in the Board of Agriculture annual reports (Biennial report — Kansas State Board of Agriculture at the HathiTrust Digital Library) for each individual county. The real question is whether Indiana naturally breaks down by county or by township as far as sourcing is concerned. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Is there a source that names unincorporated communities in Indiana? Conologue and other places like it seem to meet the definition of unincorporated community given in Unincorporated area#United States. 1920s papers (eg Jackson County Banner and The Tribune (Seymour, Indiana)) published social information for communities like Conologue, Spraytown, Indiana, and others with hard-to-search names like Oak Grove, Pleasant Ridge, etc - examples from 1926 here [25] and here [26]. Here's a notice to Conologue Community in 1928 [27]. People are described as "of Conologue" as late as 1956 [28]. This is not at all my area of expertise, and I'm not going to put more time into it. It may need someone to write more histories or directories of whatever these places are/were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and new sources brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing evidence that this was more than a short-lived post office at a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Especially as Baker says (p.133) outright that it was a railway station that later gained a post office. ☺ After no success with a lot of histories and gazetteers, I finally located this as Fleming's in a table on page 80 of W. F. Allen's 1874 Gazetteer of Railway Stations in the United States and the Dominion of Canada. It was on the Ohio & Mississippi. That source says that the station served a population of 200, but makes no statement about what form that population took. Fleming's is in the station listing for the O&M in James Macfarlane's 1890 An American Geological Railway Guide too. The post office is in the 1899 USPS directory. But no Lippincott's nor the Thomas gazetteer has a Fleming or Fleming's, out of the several that they do have, in Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND. The only result I have found so far in Newspapers.com is this [29] from 1975, about a road crossing a railroad "at or near Fleming, Spencer-Redding Township", that two farmers used to get to their farms. It's not easy to search, as Fleming is a common surname, and there was a school in Duckcreek township called Fleming School five miles north and one mile east of Elwood, Indiana - but unlike Conologue, Indiana, it does not have lots of mentions as an inhabited place. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobtown, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This book's explanation of the name's origin for a place in Clay County strikes me as a bit of a "just so" story, but it's about all I get besides Baker. I'm just not finding a trace of the place searching and there's nothing there which suggests it was really a town. @Uncle G:? Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The interesting thing is reading Baker, p. 71. Baker tells us that xe can only guess at what this is because it doesn't appear any maps that xe has consulted. It's like reading a deletion nomination rationale straight out of the source. ☺

  Wanting to be thorough, although one could just leave it at that, I did some looking. There's a biography of John Mellencamp (ISBN 9780857128430) that says that this was the original working title of The Lonesome Jubilee because Mellencanp's grandparents "once lived there".

  Other than that, though, I have turned up nothing. There are some soil surveys that name a soil type after this, but they aren't documenting the (supposed) town. The gazetteers only turn up the place in Massachusetts. I couldn't even construct more than a vague opening sentence of an article, with zero hope for expansion or clarification, because even the biography only narrows it down to Jackson County, and is only indirectly reporting the existence of the place based upon Mellencanp's recollection of how xe named a music album. For a place, I'd prefer a geographer to a biographer.

  Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added a 2015 local newspaper article source, as well as a Billboard magazine cite about the Mellencamp connection. The property owner name Mellencamp appears right near the location on some plat maps. eg [30]; though not listed as "Bobtown" on that one, you can see where the school was located, and there are a bunch of smaller plots centered at the location. It was/is an unincorporated community which has receded into remembrance, like so many U.S. midwestern locales.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding: there are 101 hits for "Bobtown" in the archives of the Seymour Daily Republican (1898-1920), on internet archive [31]. Mostly mundane reporting of what's happening in the community. But more than enough to show it was a recognized populated community.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking out a random sampling of the Daily Republican and finding random things like reports of football teams with "CORTLAND" as the headline, and "Lawrence Phegley sold a cow" without any sort of clue about a Bobtown, this seems to be another case of counting the number of hits rather than reading the sources. I challenge you to find just two of those newspaper hits that actually tell you what Bobtown is, the basic "Bobtown is a …" introduction part of an article. Should be easy, right, with 101 of them? So prove it. And as you note, Billboard is Mellencamp's recollection, as I discussed above. That map that doesn't say Bobtown at all is a contraindication, if anything, and yet more support for Baker saying that this isn't on any maps at all. The only real source is Spicer, which you've mis-cited by the way, but which doesn't say vital things like that it was a town, or a village, or even a hamlet. There's a one-room rural school and grocery story run by a Bob that apparently gave rise to a nickname. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luther, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be a 4th class PO and not a settlement: there's nothing there and no mention in county history. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Baker source outright says that this was a post office, so this is yet another instance of falsely turning a post office into a community. Unfortunately, none of the gazetteers that I can get my hands on hit the necessary time window; but I did find a county history that has Luther, with Sawdust Mill in brackets in the table of contents: Kaler & Maring 1907, p. 149 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKalerMaring1907 (help). There's also a Luther telephone company in the same place per Kaler & Maring 1907, p. 161 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKalerMaring1907 (help). So this is in the history books, even if only for telecommunications matters. Uncle G (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kaler, Samuel P.; Maring, Richard H. (1907). History of Whitley County, Indiana. County and regional histories of the "Old Northwest.": Indiana. B. F. Bowen & Company. (History of Whitley County, Indiana at the Internet Archive)
• Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND. Newspapers.com results show that people lived, holidayed and died there (not in that order), at least between 1897 and 1907 [32], [33]; there was a transport service that stopped there in 1922 [34]; there was a general store as well as a PO [35], [36]; and, as mentioned, the Luther telephone exchange was closed in 1907 [37]. May I suggest that you search digitized newspapers before bringing articles to AfD? I have a subscription to Newspapers.com, but it appears that the same results can be found through the Wikipedia Library through NewspaperARCHIVE.com [38]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that what these news reports are all consistent with an isolated store which contained a 4th class post office, where people who lived in the area went to pick up their mail. Passing mentions of this as a place don't tell us enough about the spot to say that, yes, there was not only a store with a PO, there were houses and maybe other businesses and people living in a small town. We need sources that specifically address this by talking about it as a town (and no, passingly calling it a village or whatever is usually not good enough: too many people after the fact see a name opn a map and assume there's a town there). The telephone exchange is a bit better, but we're still in the situation where we have trouble telling the truth about the place, because we don't actually know enough. In particular, since it appears to bave gone now, when did it go away? Right now, our best accurate article would say no more than "Luther was a place where there was a phone exchange for a while." Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added some info and sources to the article. Several sources from the early 20th century call Luther a town. As for when it "went away", the general store burned down in 1925, that's all I know. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note From a quick'ish search the vast majority of links appear to be a link-back to Wikipedia as the primary source. It appears there might be a feedback loop -- Tawker (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a general problem with GNIS-sourced stuff; there's a whole automated ecosystem that echoes either us or the original GNIS data and amplifies it without any sort of check that it is real, as indeed the mass-importers did with Wikipedia. Which is why RebeccaGreen. Mangoe, I and others are looking for county/state history books, newspapers, and contemporary gazetteers to address hundreds of thousands of outright lies. Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Geonet is not a reliable source for populated places (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#GEOnet Names Server (GNS) for discussion) and the Census of Iran has been known to count people according to locations that are not necessarily villages/towns but can be shops, pumps, bridges, farms etc. Fails WP:V. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NPLACE @PharyngealImplosive7: Looking at it on Google Maps you can see there are a bunch of houses on Mahmid Road. So to think that that cluster of houses is called Mahmid makes sense to me. A large majority of tiny villages on this planet technically fail WP:V, because reliable sources (or at least the ones I have access to) do not cover every single tiny village on this planet. This is way way bigger than Achnabat. Polygnotus (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a wide gulf between "makes sense to me" and verifiability. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Statistical Center of Iran verified that it exists. Polygnotus (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it hasn't. Read the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - two simple searches, one on Google maps and Open Map, shows this exists and is big enough to allow for sourcing. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sources turn up when you search for the name in Arabic that Google Maps says: محیمد? Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't you use the Persian name? Anyway, the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG -- WP:SNG Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what sources turn up that satisfy those principles? You seem to be unwilling to provide a single one and instead argue that we should build an encyclopaedia because it "makes sense to me" that we should have things that by your own admission fail even basic verifiability. We've had a massive problem with mass-created places from databases that fail verifiability because the databases aren't constructed reliably, in Iran and elsewhere, and you're going to have to pull your finger out and actually show verifiability. "makes sense to me" is worthless in the face of what we know regarding the unreliability of these mass database imports by an editor that we had massive community discussions about and who is the article creator using a database here. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Valley, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've found one person born there, but best evidence is that this was just a 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reference 2 plainly states it was a post office. Nothing there today, just a crossroad with a couple of houses. Fails WP:NGEO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 2 also plainly has the heading Elizabeth City. This appears to be an inside-out article with the city's post office being treated as the main subject when the only decent source in the article is more about the city, and how it collapsed, itself. The city does get a namecheck in the 1884 Inter-State History of Henry County, Indiana, so that is 2 separate history books, and the Hazzard one is fairly detailed even if it is mostly about how the city stopped existing. Really, this should be Elizabeth City, Indiana without the "unincorporated community" falsehoods. It's a genuine settlement that's recorded by history, albeit that Hazzard in its first sentence clarifies that this "City" was actually a village. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel like this last comment is worth further investigation/commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westcroft, Staffordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a village or even a hamlet. Source 1 is a photograph of a farm. Source 2 is a map. Source 3 mentions the farm in Source 1. Source 4 mentions the name of the place. Source 5 doesn't even appear to mention it. It is practically an orphan having two links to main space (although one of these is also up for deletion). The article itself gives us its location and says it is primarily residential. And that's it. I am not seeing anything that gives a credible claim to notability, even with the latitude shown to places. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm not sure it's true to say that this is "not even a hamlet". We do have a problem with people creating articles for "places" that turn out to be just a farm and a word on an ordnance survey map, but in this case Westcroft has signs announcing it on entry (on Google Streetview), is a Westcroft Ward on Essington parish council, has a Westcroft Neighbourhood Watch, is the name of the bus stops. I'm not saying that these things necessarily indicate notability, only that this instance is not a case of somebody mistaking the name of a farm on a map and inventing an entire place from it. Joe D (t) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. But even if it is a hamlet, and the article just calls it a residential area, I'm still not seeing any claim to Notability. KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Essington: looking further at this and at Underhill, Staffordshire, I would merge them both into their parish, as is fairly common for unremarkable hamlets that will never have more than a couple of paragraphs to be said about them. Joe D (t) 13:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Essington#Essington Parish. Insufficient material to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Once you all get to the early 19th century histories of Staffordshire and discover that there was a Hilton Park in Hilton township in the Cuttleston hundred, of which only Hilton Hall remains; which is, contrary to what Wikipedia says, the actual source of the name for Hilton Park services (and apparently all of the other things Bing Maps tells me are called Hilton Park something around there); and which encompassed West Croft Farm and Essington Manor, then you will know what the actual encyclopædic subject is here. Hilton Park and Hilton do not cover any of this, observe. We are missing this almost entirely, because we only cover 1 building. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • White, William (1834). "HILTON". History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Staffordshire. Sheffield: Robert Leader. p. 235.
  • "H.C. Vernon, Hilton Park Estate, Wolverhampton". The reports of Andrew Thompson to the Inclosure Commissioners. Collections for a History of Staffordshire. Staffordshire Record Society. 1996. pp. 125–127.
  • "West Croft Farm, Essington". Staffordshire Past Track.
  • Useful for creating Hilton, or expanding Hilton Hall. But for this? KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We all have tools that can edit the content and change the title of the page. And now we all know that the subject isn't a "residential area"; which was unresearched rubbish, but unresearched rubbish that can be edited. Nor is the farm the real subject. This is exactly the same situation as with Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion) and Hanwell Park 15 years ago. That was fixed by editing and page moving, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we've established that Westcroft is a residential area, albeit a small one about which there will likely never be more than a stub of encyclopedic content to be written – we would normally cover such areas within their parish articles. If you want to write an article about Hilton Park, it would be odd to start it from an article of which you do not intend to keep the title or any of the content. Even if you did create a Hilton Park article and mention Westcroft in it, it would be more use to readers who are looking for information about the settlement for the redirect to be to the Essington article. Joe D (t) 00:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read what is right in front of you. Even the nomination notes that the sources establish that this was a farm; and explains that the claim to being a "residential area" is unsupported by any actual sources, as it wouldn't be because it was not and still is not one; the farm (with its moat!) even being still in the middle of farmland on modern maps. The way to address this farm is to refactor it into the actual historical subject that encompassed the farm. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Joe D. I've added a sentence to the Essington article, so don't think this needs merging. There's nothing about the farm in this article except the source, but detail could be added in Essington. Hilton, including Hilton Park, is a separate parish that nowadays doesn't include Westcroft (if it ever did) and it seems simpler to create a new article for Hilton parish or Hilton Park, if thought notable, than repurpose this. Rupples (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • You actually don't agree if you call this a farm, as you just did. Steinsky is asserting that this is a "residential area", which is an unsourced and actually false claim by the article that we shouldn't be basing decisions upon, and called it a "hamlet" in a preceding rationale. Neither is true; and obviously neither is a basis for a good rationale. Actual history books have this as a farm, and go on about Hilton Park and all of the bits and pieces of the Hilton Park estate back in the early middle 19th century. It's mad to think that renaming and refactoring this, which anyone can do, is "simpler" than the whole effort of funnelling the work onto one of the few people with administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Essington. My source search lists this as a farm, and the index of the best source I found says "see Essington." However I do see that there is a physical sign announcing you are entering Westcroft, so I think this can possibly be saved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Essington: non-notable area.PamD 23:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It's mad that there's this whole ruckus on the Administrators' Noticeboard about the article creator egregiously misinterpreting sources, when SRS 1996, p. 125 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSRS1996 (help) (a reprint of a report published in 1864, note) is right there, saying

  These farms called Essington Manor and Westcroft comprise part of the Hilton Park estate, which is situate about 5 miles to the eastward of Wolverhampton and consists of upwards of 2,000 acres.

  and White 1834, p. 235 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWhite1834 (help) is right there saying

  HILTON, a township and prebend in the East Division of Cuttleston Hundred, 5 miles N.N.E. of Wolverhampton, is a tithe-free estate, consisting of three farms, and HILTON PARK, the beautiful seat of Henry Charles Edward Vernon Graham Esq.

  and yet here people are still arguing on the basis that this is an "area" or a "hamlet" or somehow part of Essington, the adjacent township that the very same source White 1834, p. 249 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWhite1834 (help) directly contracts this assertion by saying

  BUSHBURY, or Byshbury parish, comprises the two townships of Bushbury and Essington, the former in the Seisdon and the latter in the Cuttleston hundred.

  and goes on at White 1834, p. 251 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWhite1834 (help) to say

  ESSINGTON township, 4¼ miles N.N.E. of Wolverhampton, is a district of scattered houses, mostly occupied by colliers; but the coal mines here are now nearly exhausted. H. C. E. Vernon Graham, Esq. of Hilton park, is lord of the manor, and owner of most of the land.

  . Indeed, the GeoHack in this very article leads almost directly to this 1880s map that shows Hilton, Bushbury, Essington, Hilton Park, and the Manor Farm and Westcroft Farm. Surely we should be better at this reading of sources lark than the article creator is! But collectively we're proving ourselves not to be. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's 2025, not 1834. I'm sure White was correct in describing Essington as a township of scattered houses in 1834. Meanwhile, Wikipedia needs to describe what the situation is in 2025. Essington is now a civil parish of more than just scattered houses, and as we established sometime earlier in this discussion, Westcroft is now an area in that parish.. Joe D (t) 07:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite right. It looks as though there still is a Westcroft Farm but I don't often see farms mentioned in village/parish articles. Could be, especially if it includes listed buildings - but a quick check of Historic England shows it doesn't. There is a special school, technically in Westcroft though accessed from Underhill. Rupples (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a separate settlement officially recognised by the council. Signs are only erected for such settlements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did anybody actually google this? Here's an example of houses for sale in Westcroft right now [39]. Results in the British Newspaper Archive show that it was a farm in the 19th century, and there was still a farm there in the 1940s, but there were already houses by then too, and more spacious, detached houses being built and sold there later in the 20th century and in this century. Definitely a named residential area and meets WP:GEOLAND. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course Google has been searched, seems a bit remiss to question this. There's many houses for sale in many neighbourhoods, suburbs, informal areas on primelocation.com - not every single place gets its own Wikipedia page. GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability, but it's open to question here, and in any case, if after searching for sources little is found to write about the place that presumption is rebuttable. But if you've found WP:SIGCOV put your sources up for evaluation, otherwise Westcroft may be better merged/redirected into its parish or town as many UK places are and have been, some at AfD. Rupples (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I questioned it because the nominator wrote "Not a village or even a hamlet" and referred to sources in the article, with no mention of WP:BEFORE, and another editor wrote "My source search lists this as a farm". Discussing deletion on the basis that there is only a farm there, and that is not a legally recognised residential area, could lead to out-of-date assumptions. WP:GEOLAND says "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." It doesn't say that populated places with legal recognition ("even if their population is very low") are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. WP:GEOLAND in fact says nothing at all about parishes (civil or ecclesiastical) - is there some other notability guideline for parishes and parts of parishes that editors advocating for merging are relying on? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly isn’t a parish. We are considering it on a case by case basis. Do you have any sources that we can consider? Other than that some houses are for sale there? KJP1 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Ordnance Survey Open Names database has Westcroft as a suburban area (SJ80 file download). It may need to pass the GNG, or it may have presumed notability under NPLACE - depends how that guideline is interpreted. Despite searches we haven't found a great deal to write about Westcroft. In effect, Westcroft's a kind of linear spillover of Wolverhampton's suburbs along the A460 road into the neighbouring parish of Essington, probably from the 1930s onwards - an early 20th century OS map shows Westcroft Farm and what may be one or two dwellings. Rupples (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added some sources and information to the article. As I wrote in my Keep !vote above, it is a named residential area, a populated legally recognized place (with over 380 electors in 2022) and meets WP:GEOLAND. I don't believe that it also needs to meet WP:GNG (or why do we have notability guidelines?), and also doesn't need to meet unwritten policies or guidelines about parishes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RebeccaGreen - Your additions are looking weak. Do you have any sigcov of this area that doesn’t Fail Verification? KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While WP:GEOLAND may apply here and give a presumption that Westcroft merits an article, WP:N states it does not guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. It's because there's so little coverage that a merge/redirect to the parish has been suggested as a better way to introduce Westcroft to readers. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Underhill, Staffordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Three of this article's five sources appear to Fail Verification, in that they don't reference the place at all. Which leaves a map, and a bus timetable. I can't see that these give this very unremarkable housing estate any Notability. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Scotlands Estate. Delete. I can find no evidence of "Underhill" being used to refer to a place in Essington parish, as claimed in the article. But it looks like it is used in the media as a synonym for Scotlands Estate in the immediately adjacent area of Wolverhampton, e.g. [40][41][42] Joe D (t) 13:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC) (Updated 14:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC) per Rupples's comment)[reply]
• Comment. Not seeing much point in merging this. Scotlands Estate and Scotlands appear to be duplicates, this article's title is misleading - it ought to be Underhill, Wolverhampton and the sources don't support the content. However, Underhill should be mentioned somewhere and a redirect made from its accurate title. More of a 'start again' exercise. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not really a place any more, and when it was, it was Underhill farm, Cannock Road, Wolverhampton. This isn't some enormous historical place that we've entirely missed, as is Hilton Park; a vast sprawling estate to the north covering 4,650 acres (1,880 ha) in the 1860s, clearly shown on the old maps, that is also in history books, with nary a mention in Wikipedia all these years (c.f. Westcroft, Staffordshire (AfD discussion)). This is a farm whose sole record seems to be mentions as a farmer's address in pig breeding journals. The actual population centre, a kilometre and a bit away from the farm, was Bushbury, which we already have. Ironically, the first source in the article is actually about Bushbury, and this content is falsely sourced, there being no claim to any place called Underhill in the source (which, ironically, has information about Hilton Park on pages 235, 251, 488, and 666). I agree with Rupples. There's nothing that this can be corrected into that we don't already have, and this article is plain false. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Belleville, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Possibly the second least reliable source used in GNIS updates would be state highway maps (NOAA charts are worse and fortunately very little-used). The spot in question is next to a now-abandoned PRR rail line west out of Cartersburg, and it may have been a rail spot, but tthere is just nothing there on any map. I can't image why the Indiana DOT felt the need to label an unimportant T intersection next to the tracks which appear to have just been taken up, but in any case I find no real testimony for this as a settlement. Baker seems to be just reading the name off the map as there was certainly nothing there when he wrote his work. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Baker on page 244 says a "village" that is literally north of Belleville, Indiana, but gives no dates. The 1895 Lippincott's should have this on page 2009 with the other "North Something"s, but does not. It has Belleville proper on page 620, also giving the name of the railroad that it was on. There's no North Belleville anywhere in the Arcadia Publishing books on Plainfield (ISBN 9780738594484) and Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970).

  Looking backwards in time, however, the Indiana State Gazetteer and Shippers' Guide for 1866–67 has North Belleville "on the Terra Haute & Indianapolis rail-road, 1 mile north of Belleville" but does not say what it was. The 1854 Baldwin and Thomas A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States has North Belleville on page 831 and says that it was a "village" located "19 miles W. by S. from Indianapolis". So Baker and the contemporary mid-century gazetteers agree that this was a village on the railroad. It's in a 1856 Lippincott's as well, but has dropped out of Lippincott's by the end of the 19th century, whereas Belleville has remained listed, despite the implication of Baker and our Belleville, Indiana article that North Belleville was where the railroad was re-routed to.

  There definitely was a village there, and it was definitely on one railroad. The gazetteers confirm it; but they give almost no detail, not even the usual listing of some buildings, and the histories (I also checked Hadley's 1914 History of Hendricks County, Indiana.) are mute on it entirely.

  Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a social para in a newspaper from 1915 (The Reporter-Times, Martinsville, Indiana) [43] that says a family called Garshwiler were moving to their new home in North Belleville. Before that date, there are reports that a station was opened there in 1890 [44] (if that's the same North Belleville - it doesn't help that there were also places of that name in other states!); a man died there in 1881 [45]; someone was injured trying to jump onto a train at North Belleville in 1886 [46]; and someone was killed there in 1896 while riding on top of a night express train that went under a bridge [47] (those 3 are pretty definitely the Indiana North Belleville). So it sounds like it had homes, a station and a bridge over the railway line. Not much help, sorry! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Despite the sparse info we have on it, the above commentary argues in favor of keeping (and improving if possible).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This tax-assessment notice from the Belleville Daily Advocate of May 16, 1914, refers to "the town of North Belleville." Per WP:MIRACLEON34THSTREET, we're done. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joppa, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

OK, so here we have a weird one. The actual spot consists of a couple of 20th century houses and a garage across the road from one of them. Whether you would call this a town is a matter of opinion. Searching, however, lights up like a Christmas tree, because this spot was the subject of an urban legend which c;ained that there were Spooky Things happening there. The rumors centered around a church which isn't in fact here; it's somewhere in the Clayton-Belleville area. I haven't found its exact location but you can read the story in this local news report, and this one reorting that the building had been burned down for the second time. Of course Google ranks the rumors higher than the debunking but what you gonna do. Anyway, this is a spot on a map, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Baker Hoosier place names book has this as a "village" on page 181. Despite the claimed dates, there's no such Joppa in the 1895 Lippincott's, however, nor in several other gazetteers. Nor does the 1885 History of Hendricks County, Indiana have anything. The Arcadia Publishing book for Plainfield tantalizingly mentions a Joppa Road, but has nothing specific. An 1899 USPS directory lists a Joppa post office in Hendricks; and everything else that I've found only confirms that post office and provides essentially zero information about it, because it's largely contemporary sources giving a postal address. I'm unable to confirm what Baker claims, including the claim to a second Joppa in Hancock County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not found calling places "villages" to be particularly reliable. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In late 20th and 21st century sources, yes. Baker is from 1995. But 19th century sources pre-date the mid-20th-century shift in the U.S.A. to calling most things cities. Lippincott's is reasonably self-consistent and systematic in its use of "hamlet", "village", and "town" and in its "post-" variants of those. The reason to suspect Baker is not that it is from 1995, though. It is that in most other cases so far there has been supporting evidence from elsewhere to be found. In this case, I can only find supporting evidence for the post office; not for the "village" that Baker claims, nor for the other Joppa that Baker has in the same entry. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This article is a stub at best, and one of the sources is literally the census information. JTZegers (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the census website is being used for is as a source of the FIPS ID, which is obsolete anyway. There's no guarantee implied that this is a real place, and they do not provide populations for these places unless they are represented by CDPs. Mangoe (talk)

Gale, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can only guess how the GNIS folks came up with this one. This got back-entered onto the maps after "Board decisions referenced after Phase I data compilation or staff researched non-controversial names." What seems to have happened in practice is that they conflated a housing development from the 1970s-'80s with the post office that shut down some seventy years earlier. The county history doesn't mention it and there's nothing there in earlier maps and aerials. There's no particular reason to believe that they have the location correct, and it seems unlikely that the development was named after the post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No information found, and the post office does not count toward notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Baker's Hoosier placenames book on page 141 says that this is a post office. It's there long enough to have made it into the 1895 Lippincott's, but it's not there amongst the Gales on page 1237, contraindicating any sort of settlement. This close to Indianapolis, the Bodenhamer and Barrows Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (IUP, 1994) seems worth a try, but that yields nothing.

  However the Arcadia Publishing book on Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970) has Gale on page 114 and says that there was also a blacksmith, hardware store, and the original site (until 1961) of the Bartlett Chapel Church. So that's one source that's more than a post office directory entry. Another is the Hendricks County, Interim Report of 1989 by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which on page 36 describes Gale in the past tense as a "village" that had "a general store, blacksmith shop, and a Methodist church". So this is a documented, albeit barely, historical village, now extinct.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • hmmmm... I don't suppose any of these gives us enough information to confirm the location? Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Arcadia publishing book has a drawing of the old church building, but no map. It does say that Hardscrabble, where Bartlett Chapel Church now is, is "a few miles east" of where Gale was; and that the original chapel building was re-used by the golf course. Both the current chapel and the golf course are on modern maps, so the location in the article at hand seems reasonable. The Hendricks County, Interim Report has a map (alas! too blurry to read on-screen) and outright says in words "Gale, located east of Danville at U.S. 36 and County Road 300 E, had […]" which again supports this article's coördinates. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Center Township, Hendricks County, Indiana and update that page to list it as a "former settlement". I think the sources found by Uncle G are enough to support a redirect. A separate article is only warranted if it has accurate details supported by reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center Valley, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Look, the cited reference says "CENTER VALLEY is a postoffice on section 25, in the southern part of the township. There is no village at that point. What more needs to be said? Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable place and factually incorrect article. Also, the IU registrar supposedly born there (reference 5) was born in 1864, apparently before the post office, so he was likely born in a different Center Valley. Anyway, without any information about this place we can't be certain of anything the article says, other than the name exists in GNIS and there was once a post office. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't in the 1895 Lippincott's as Center Valley. It's there, on page 838, as Centre Valley, a "post-hamlet" in Liberty township, with "a church and about a half-dozen houses". Yes, the 1885 History says the aforegiven, but the decade-later Lippincott's records more. Clearly, it went from there being nothing there to there being something there. Baker's Hoosier place names book has Centre Valley on page 91 and states that it was a "village". Baker also explains on that page that Center Valley moved from Morgan County across the border to Hendricks County in 1872 and there was a Center Valley from 1856. Zell's Popular Encyclopedia of 1869 confirms a Centre Valley in Morgan on page 485. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncle G, what's a "post-hamlet" in the context above? I think that's the first time I've seen such a term. Does it mean it grew past an ordinary hamlet? – The Grid (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no "classes" or "grades" of cities in Lippincott's, as that was a 20th century innovation in some parts of the U.S.A.. It had a uniform terminology (for places in the U.S.A.): where things are hamlets, villages, towns/townships, and cities; and the hamlets, villages, and towns/townships that have post offices have "post-" prefixed to them. Things that are just post offices on their own are "post-office". Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article has inaccuracies regarding the establishment of the post office and the birth year of the IU registrar. If the registrar was born in 1864, it's unlikely they were born in the Center Valley mentioned, as it was relocated in 1872. The presence of a Center Valley in Morgan County, verified by Zell's 1869 encyclopedia, further supports the claim of an earlier existence. Surya (talk) 18:43, 02 Feb 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oruru-Parapara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NGEO Statistical areas aren't legally recognised places. The legally recognised places would be Oruru and Parapara. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest moving the article to Oruru Valley.-Gadfium (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, that's a Keep, but under a better title.-Gadfium (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the page as is could be moved to Oruru and then cleaned up to remove the references to the other localities. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone is willing to create an article on it I'm fine with a merge. None of the potential merge targets such as Oruru, Parapara, or Aurere exist as articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Split Completely agree census tracts are not notable, but this is a unique situation where the census tract covers four places which are eligible for WP:NGEO articles, but those articles don't appear to exist yet. It may be better editorially to actually keep this until those articles exist. Oruru certainly needs its own article based on a WP:BEFORE search. Oruru was listed as a town in Wise's New Zealand 1905, Aurere as a station, Parapara as "see Mangonui," and Paranui as a bit harder to find. Aurere now looks like a hamlet and there's a tourist centre there, Paranui is clearly a hamlet as well, Parapara is a "locality" with several houses. All are clearly defined by the census and as such would all pass WP:NGEO on their own, so we shouldn't lose any of the information at this article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Oruru which seems to be the most significant of the localities mentioned after checking maps and Google Street View. More information about the area and its history can be found easily - just search for "Oruru Hall" which was once (reputedly) the northernmost cinema in New Zealand. The existing text can be kept as its demographic information e.g. "The Oruru-Parapara statistical area, which includes Oruru..." Daveosaurus (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there doesn't seem to be any dispute that the settlement in the area covered by the article is notable, and the article is well sourced. This isn't the right avenue for a page move (or a split). If those are the preferred actions then this should be closed as keep and a separate discussion launched for that. It also seems bizarre to create a new page for the sole purpose of merging this into it, rather than just doing a normal move discussion and the required edits. Turnagra (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyhurst, Telford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing any Notability at all. It's part of a parish, and that's it. The article is nothing more than an description of where it's close to. The sourcing is weak, and it links to nothing. KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no indication of notability.

PamD 23:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect , now that Rupples has created a destination. I've created the missing dab page Hollyhurst. PamD 06:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on third thoughts. Non notable, and parish/town council wards do not merit a redirect and dab page entry. (Might make an exception and list this on the dab page, unlinked except to Oakengates, to avoid confusion with other Shropshire Hollyhurst). PamD 14:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently it was a parish ward so maybe is notable per GEOLAND but otherwise although its on Google maps it isn't an OS settlement. As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollyhurst there are other settlements with this name including another in Shropshire but this one doesn't appear notable. The creation of this article reminded me of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InspectorBottle/Archive but the author doesn't appear involved in that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oakengates#Governance a header I've just renamed and added a list of wards under. Hollyhurst, centred around Hollyhurst Road, is one of four wards making up the civil parish of Oakengates. When recently verifying narrative on this article the only sources I found were maps and a mention within a news item on local elections, so there doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Rupples (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep to merge to Oakengates#Governance I found these sources mentioning Hollyhurst, they hint to something once existing here, likely a row of coal miners cottages or industries?: [48] - The Colliery Year Book and Coal Trades Directory, [49] - The Black Book, A Directory of Solid Fuel-burning Appliances and Associated Equipment. Of course this could all be covered in Oakengates. I am just looking but these two sources only record one or two mentions of people and a small settlement like said maybe housing or industries. When compared on an OS map like here: [50] The area is occupied by Wombridge Iron Works and then in another side by side of 1940s, it is almost if anything abandoned. Nothing there but likely wasteland? I think Wombridge could have an article of its own since it has some mentions online with historical and other notes. Of course I will make on my sandbox and will maintain it as a draft until the time is right to offer it up as a separate issue. Hollyhurst perhaps should be put under Oakengates. Maybe as a ward and a little about the iron works once occupying an area north of Oakengates. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is very helpful. Could it have wider application? There are a lot of wards/suburbs/areas articles which appear to have little/no notability. An example I'm just looking at is Daisy Bank. Could we Re-direct it into the Suburbs section of Walsall? KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Daisy Bank is a bit different to Hollyhurst. I'll explain briefly but formally why. Daisy Bank had two names Daisy Bank, Walsall and Daisy Bank railway station near Bilston. Now thats two different areas. But Walsalls Daisy Bank has some notability even if minor to primary research.

  • Links include: National Collection of Aerial Photography

  https://ncap.org.uk › NCAP-000-0...

  Daisy Bank; Walsall District; England | NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photos, The National Archives

  https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk › ...

  Coach house & stables, Daisy Bank for Samson Fox, Walsall] - The National Archives, The Walsall observer, and repository of local literature - Page 74 - The Walsall observer, and repository of local literature - Page 74. These are just examples. Perhaps these could be added to the article and see if it may help whether it has enough notability to be an article? Maybe like Chuckery, Caldmore and Pleck for example? Just a suggestion DragonofBatley (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't really oppose redirect to Oakengates, but nor do I think it would be useful – the article is named "Hollyhurst, Telford" and I can find no evidence that there is a "Hollyhurst, Telford" in the sense that people call a neighbourhood of Telford "Hollyhurst". The addresses in the ward all give their neighbourhood as Wrockwardine Wood. The electoral ward is specifically for Oakengates parish – it has no relevance outside of the context of Oakengates parish – so is unlikely to ever be referred to as "Hollyhurst, Telford". In the 2 sources that DragonofBatley cites, Hollyhurst appears to be the name of a house/property in an address (and again, the addresses give the property's neighbourhood as Wrockwardine Wood). Joe D (t) 18:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Steinsky, I don't find evidence of a Hollyhurst ever being here. This was historically Wombridge, with the spot geolocated in the article being in the middle of the erstwhile Wombridge Iron Works and south of the Wombridge Colliery. Yes this is the Wombridge that is in the VCH, that we don't even have an article about. Hollyhurst Road, the only thing apparently named Hollyhurst on any map, is off Wombridge Road, for pity's sakes! I cannot find anything to indicate that this isn't just made up from whole cloth based upon 1 road name. How on Earth does anyone research this place and not come up with Wombridge straight away? Or manage to invent a Hollyhurst? Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DragonofBatley, who created this, if I recall correctly said the place names used for article titles were taken from Google Maps and Hollyhurst is indeed named thereon. Rupples (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot speak to Google Maps, which in my experience scrapes names from random business WWW sites that do not know their own proper addresses; but I'm consulting non-dumb-algorithmically-made maps like the modern O.S. maps that still have Wombridge marked today (and no Hollyhurst) just south of the geolocation pin in this article and this 1885 O.S. map which has "Wombridge" in three sizes of type splatted across it. It's quite unsubtle about it. ☺ And from knowing the correct name it is but a short step to the history books. There's not only the Victoria County History. There are a number of Shropshire history books that document, for example, the Augustinian priory of St. Leonard in Wombridge (Wombridge Priory), remembered today in the name of Priory Road that is just south along Wombridge Road from the aforementioned Hollyhurst Road. In the face of all of this, which practically shouts itself from maps and history books, it is absurd to go with the idea of Hollyhurst. Uncle G (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is verifiably a Hollyhurst ward for elections to Oakengates Town Council, but I'm coming to the view that such wards don't even merit a redirect, which would logically require a dab page entry too in most cases. (Although a dab page entry might just be useful here, as there is a real Hollyhurst also in Shropshire!) PamD 14:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just in case anyone was thinking of it, we now have a draft for Wombridge at User:Aymatth2/Wombridge. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]