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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive

Amanpulo (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 resort which covers Pamalican island fails WP:GNG. Only sources are from travel guides. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and Islands. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pamalican. I don't think it makes sense to have two separate articles about the resort and the island when they both occupy the same area. —seav (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pamalican per the same reason as Seav's. Though it got me thinking, are both subjects (the resort and the island) notable enough to have an article? AstrooKai (Talk) 08:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The island itself meets WP:GEONATURAL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge parts worth merging, overlapping subjects with a stub each. CMD (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sage wall (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 evidence of sufficient notability, has received no attention in reliable sources. Sources in article are one not independent, one good book that doesn't mention the Sage Wall, and an unreliable (though popular in some circles) source. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding anything that would establish notability. If RS coverage did exist, this could be covered as a paragraph in Boulder Batholith rather than a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tum, Ethiopia (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)

My searches turned up nothing to support the subject's notability. The only claim one could make re notability is Tum Airport which already has its own article. This article has only just been created, so I would usually draftify, but this has already been done once, and an editor has moved it back, thereby asserting that the page belongs in mainspace. Hence my nomination for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:GEOLAND is one of our most permissive notability guidelines. This is difficult to search for in English - the only results I was able to find that were not database entries were tour groups which had planned a night to be spent there, lots of Getty images taken in or near there, or quasi-reliable sites like [1]. However it is easily verified on maps and satellite images especially due to the airport. It's to be expected since it's a remote part of the world, but it's clearly a town. What would be really helpful is if someone could provide the local spelling to be able to search for additional results. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and eventually draftify), per reasons above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GEOLAND requires some actual proof and not hand waving. Also see WP:DEL-REASON #7, if no references can be found for the article it should not exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• '''Keep"': Given to the reasons raised by @SportingFlyer

Esti92 (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Mountain, Alabama (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 was soft deleted at AfD in 2021 due to lack of participation. Nothing has changed since that discussion; the rationale still applies.

Topo maps show a ridge called Straight Mountain. There is no sign of a community at the location; this appears to be a WP:GNIS error. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not clear that this is a notable community rather than a neighborhood. GNIS is inadequate. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Another case of map misreading (or at least wording), it's marked on older topos as "Straight Mountain Ch" a bit south of the current label, and is indeed still a Baptist church. No idea why they put the label where they did but it's obviously just wrong, and it's not a town nor ever was. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeport, 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)

What's at the site is the Ridgeport Community Church, and it is labelled on the topos as "Ridgeport Ch" until the 2010-era redo of the maps, which seemingly not coincidentally is when a lot of errors show up (such as label drift and back-copying onto the maps from GNIS). In this case I was able to find this old county history which states, "Ridgeport is a hewed-log churchhouse on that ridge, west of the village of Cincinnati." And that is all it has to say. It has since been replaced by a modern generitarian building which continues to sit in isolation on the side of the road, so unless someone can find something else I think this one can be chalked up to questionable map reading. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sloppy map misreading + GNIS = failure of WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salavatabad (mountain) (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 struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Tree, 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)

Baker actually describes this as a post office spot which moved, which is a classic 4th class PO thing. No, it doesn't mean that everyone pulled up stakes and moved; it just means that the original postmaster stopped handling the mail, and someone somewhere else took over. As usual I'm finding scant evidence for an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Island 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)

It's rare for an "X City" place to fail verification, and I'd like to think there is some information out here that would at least clarify matters here. So far, I've found nothing that wasn't a reference to the mining enterprise. Judging from the oldest topos I've seen, the mine was southeast of the town "site", for they show a strip mine there. Everything else says "rail point", so the most likely history is that they wanted a town there, but it failed. But I cannot prove this nor any other theory. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless an editor can provide references to several reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Island City, Indiana. Cullen328 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This newspaper article refers to "the Island City community, south of Linton". This article refers to an incident in which Blacks were forcibly driven out of "Island City, the mining camp a mile south of Linton". I'm not convinced there's enough material there for a full article, but I think preserving it as a redirect to, say, Stocktown Township would be appropriate. Choess (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eitermillen (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 very small place with no notability of its own, better as a redirect to Contern. The sources often don't support the text (e.g. despite repeated claims that Eitermillen used to be at a place now called Maulin Diderich, I don't see any of the sources making that connection?) and are passing mentions or names on maps only. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage of this tiny hamlet (a "lieu-dit" is basically a named house or group of houses, not a once independent village), and the history and demographics seem to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR due to this lack of sources. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do believe the subject matter here is notable, however it appears that the article in its current state lacks in sourcing to verify claims and establish said notability. Once redirected I can once again work on a draft or in my sandbox to compile more sources and improve the article so it’s ready for the mainspace. N1TH Music (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an odd vortex of an article where it clearly exists on maps and in at least one source, but there's nothing else to support that source in anything that's easily searchable on the web: ie I can verify that the place exists just enough to know it's likely not a hoax, but not enough to get it past the WP:V we need for a legally recognised place. (The fact there are no page numbers for the 1889/90 source help nothing.) I'd prefer a result which allows restoration once verified. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer well the source [6], it might be just a map but it’s posted on an official government owned website also if you look at the article List of Populated places in Luxembourg the sources cited is also that of a government owned website and is a database of all the legally recognised localities in Luxembourg an it lists Éitermillen. Is that not enough to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your first map shows Oetrange, Kackerterhaff, and Moutfort, but even when zoomin in no "Eitermillen" appears. Is it supposed to be where the Rue du Moulin and Route de Remich meet? Fram (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram there’s a search bar at the top wherein you can type Eitermillen and a point appears at the location was if you click the directions icon. Either way it’s in the database. I think I’ve found a clearer link here. Also here is another webpage from the government of Luxembourg website which also mentions Eitermillen. And yes it is around where Route de Remich and Rue de Moulin meet. Is that not sufficient to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh and there’s also this which is a communal document discussing all the projects completed between 2017 and 2023 in Contern and there were 2 projects in Eitermillen which is mentioned by name on page 23 and page 32. N1TH Music (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Page 23 says "New railings on the Eitermillen", this indicates that it isn't really a populated place but a location, building, route... You wouldn't say "new railings on Contern", that would make no sense. Fram (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram might be a translation error, here’s the french version also those steps can’t refer to a building because there’s no building there, what they’re referring to is this path which is a public footpath connection 2 streets, there isn’t even a building there. Also what about the other citations I listed here. N1TH Music (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't looked at everything: after a map which doesn't mention Eitermillen, and a communal document stating that they will add railings to a path named Eitermillen, I now checked this one you gave, where the closest I can find is Hëttermillen, which is also the only results I get when searching that website for Eitermillen[7]. So, after three wild goose chases, I stop looking at sources you provide, as they are wasting my time. Fram (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram Strange, the 3rd and most recent source you checked, when I typed “Eitermillen” into google, google stated that found inside the link “ Concernant la réglementation temporaire de la circulation sur la N2 entre Sandweiler et le lieu-dit « Eitermillen » à l'occasion de travaux forestiers.” And yet in the website itself I can’t find it. I apologise I should have double checked before sending it.

  But you seem to have ignored the source I mentioned was listed on the List of populated places in Luxembourg article. On page 15 if you press the eye icon on the file you can find it clearly lists it under both Eitermillen and Oetrange-Moulin. And while it does say that it’s not an “official locality” thats because Lieu-dits aren’t incorporated as such because that entails them being census subdivisions. Kréintgeshaff for example isn’t incorporated either, unless you think Kréintgeshaff should be deleted too, either way is this not evidence of Éitermillen being legally recognised? And I actually found more sources but it seems you don’t need to see anymore. N1TH Music (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure "at the Eitermillen" is a translation error. I'd err on the side of keep now. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still doesn't indicate much more than what we know, it's a "lieu-dit": our article on those isn't very good, but basically this is a named farm (or mill in this case), not an actual village. This is the Luxemburgish article on them[8], the translation makes it clear that these aren't really considered villages. Fram (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No - the translation of the Letzebuergish shows a lieu-dit could also have been anything from a house to a former locality, and we potentially have a census listing of 8 people living there which would indeed qualify it, if the source is any good (again this is where a lack of a page number hurts.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer do you not have access to the preview or something? Because when I view the source I can scroll through the pages of the book at located exactly where it says “Oetrange-Moulin”. The listing is on page 255. N1TH Music (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There it is, thanks! It's a very large document and search didn't work. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer So is that a keep from you then or a redirect? N1TH Music (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak Keep from me. It meets our criteria, but not by much. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having searched for more sources and begun rewriting the article to better fit WP:V, I am changing my status from Redirect to Keep as I'm now more confident in the articles Notability. N1TH Music (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This appears to be part of Oetrange, with the French name (Oetrange-Moulin) being Oetrange combined with the road. I'm not sure what makes it a separate topic. CMD (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chipmunkdavis officially Eitermillen has always been categorised as a separate settlement, all sources I’ve found discussing it seem to talk of it separately from Oetrange, for example then 1890 census, this topographic map from 1905 (albeit under a different name), and even modern communal documents, on pages 23 and 32 of this it discusses new stuff being constructed in Eitermillen not in Oetrange. Finally, this source which lists every locality in Luxembourg and is the basis for the entire List of Populated Places in Luxembourg article has 2 separate entries for Oetrange and Oetrange-Moulin. (If you want to see for yourself, it’s on page 15 of the document) N1TH Music (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say any of those sources discuss Eitermillen. That aside, the one conter.lu page that would load for me calls it "the Éitermillen", which if not unusual should likely be reflected in the prose. CMD (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chipmunkdavis as is written earlier, the “at the Éitermillen” is a translation error, for example also on page 32 it reads, “new trees in route de remich. As route de remich is a road, “on” is the appropriate terminology there. These translation errors aren’t uncommon they clearly meant to say “in Éitermillen and if you’re really not sure then a quick look at the french version should clear everything up. N1TH Music (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the evidence for it being a translation error? CMD (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]