Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Shortcuts

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:

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Geography

Bretz Mill, California

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

Long-defunct sawmill magically transformed into an "unincorporated community" by the notorious Carlossuarez46. PROD was removed on the basis that several sources exist that mention this place (see article talk), but all of these very clearly describe it as a sawmill and not a community, e.g. [1], which was written contemporaneously with the mill. Mills are subject to WP:GNG or WP:NCORP which are categorically failed here, because all coverage is passing mentions, nothing significant about the mill could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked around for some sources, and they described this as a mill, not a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baarmutha, Victoria

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

Non-notable place, and not a real locality. Contains only a single source, and according to both google maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this place does not exist. Likely a historical place that does not exist any more and thus doesn't meet requirements for notability. I don't like deleting articles relating to georaphy as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." however, Baarmutha is not legally recognised and it seems the area it is purported to be in, is part of Beechworth. Viatori (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this book: [2], but I don't have access to it. Would that be enough for notability? I would tend to think a place that had a post office for that long would be at least somewhat documented, but maybe post offices work differently in Australia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most places did have post offices, under names that don't exist today, but they don't seem to meet the notability requirements and thus don't have articles. The only remnants of the name today are businesses that still use the name. Viatori (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ghost town and former gold mining area. The 1907 Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazette calls it a township with a school, a library, and a population of 100. [3] There's not a lot of mentions, but it passes WP:GEOLAND and comes up in some historical scholarly articles and in agricultural information. SportingFlyer T·C 04:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jut (topography)

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

This metric is really cool but I don't think it's notable, since I can only find the unpublished arXiv source, a couple blogs and other websites that don't meet Wikipedia's RS standards. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to try to make a good keep argument here but it looks like it's only discussed in a single academic paper from 2022. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camden, Fresno County, California

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

PROD was declined last year. Non-notable location; only appearance in media is a trivial mention in a 1955 article about cattle breeding: [4]. Modern satellite view reveals a Camden Mobile Home Park and nearby gas station: [5], but that is insufficient for notability, as is the short-lived post office. Fails WP:GNG (which is the relevant standard for trailer parks) and WP:GEOLAND. Another effortless mass-created stub made in 2009 by the prolific Carlossuarez46. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also found no significant newspaper or book coverage. Jfire (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to presume notability as described per GEOLAND. Routine coverage of cattle breeding does not satisfy SIGCOV for this location. Also, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, and frankly it's time we talked about a more extensive solution to the egregiously erroneous mass-creations of Carlossuarez46 and similar editors. After five years, the California clean-up is still ongoing with no real end in sight, Iran was fixed in part by mass-deleting a lot of C46's articles but that still leaves tens of thousands to go through, and we've barely even started on Azerbaijan or Sri Lanka. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wassertorplatz

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

Fails GNG for not having SIGCOV from an Independent, reliable source for verification. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the area is clearly referenced in a number of scholarly publications and books, I'm not sure why verification is even an issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the Kreuzberger Chronik article is independent and meets GNG with significant coverage of the neighbourhood. Though, I think it would be better to have a more reliable reference- if there are in fact a number of scholar publications and books as others have commented. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

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

This article has lots of references, but there is no definition of "metropolis", so it is essentially a discussion of the etymology and a prose list of some big cities. The etymology belongs on Wiktionary, not as a WP article. The list is far less useful than List of largest cities and the like, since there are no clear criteria for inclusion. There is no potential for the article to grow beyond this, because unlike mega city and megalopolis, there is no agreed definition for "metropolis"; it's just a synonym for "big city".

(Any deletion would probably involve merging or redirecting with Metropolis (disambiguation), which obviously should remain) Furius (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might be a case of WP:TNT but I don't think we will benefit much from deletion. Shankargb (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that once WP:TNT was complete there would simply be nothing left. What do you think would be the content of this page after clean up? Furius (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metropolitan area. Agree with nom that there's no consistent definition and little substantive overview content, most of which is redudant to what's in the other article. Many of the country-by-country listings are pretty blah, just listing cities and populations with more prose than necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not in good shape at the moment but the concept of a "metropolis" is trivially notable. Astaire (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it? This is like having an article on tome when we already have book. Furius (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree with @Reywas92 that the content is mostly redundant with metropolitan area Earlsofsandwich (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Metropolitan area, per Reywas92 and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of sources would be helpful at this point. Before taking action on this sizeable article, I'd like to see a stronger consensus and also hope we can get more participation from some longtime editors and AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient scholarly study of the concept of "metropolis", distinct from "metropolitan area" or "large city" to meet WP:GNG and support a standalone article. Sources include:

Ritzer, George; Ryan, J. Michael (2011-01-25). "metropolis". The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 397–398. ISBN 978-1-4051-8352-9. (tertiary source showing the topic is covered by specialty encyclopedias; lists additional sources)
Williams, Ralph Olmsted (1890). "The Word "Metropolis" as Used in England and America". Our Dictionaries and Other English Language Topics. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 47–65. (detailed etymological history)
Farías, Ignacio; Stemmler, Susanne (2014-03-27), Brantz, Dorothee; Disko, Sasha; Wagner-Kyora, Georg (eds.), "Deconstructing "Metropolis": Critical Reflections on a European Concept", Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism, transcript Verlag, pp. 49–66, doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839420430.49/html, ISBN 978-3-8394-2043-0, retrieved 2025-01-05
Rodger, Richard (2014-03-27), Brantz, Dorothee; Disko, Sasha; Wagner-Kyora, Georg (eds.), "The Significance of the Metropolis", Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism, transcript Verlag, pp. 85–104, doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839420430.85/pdf?licensetype=restricted, ISBN 978-3-8394-2043-0, retrieved 2025-01-05
Basaldua-Sun, Sophia Marguerite (2019-10-01). "Metro(Polis): Decentering Urbanity in Conceptualizing Metropolitanism". Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 102 (4): 345–370. doi:10.5325/soundings.102.4.0345. ISSN 0038-1861.
Cunningham, David (2005). "The concept of metropolis". University of Westminster.

Jfire (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, please. This article by itself has 319 watchers. Also see Metropolis (disambiguation). And then there's the 155 watchers on Superman's home of Metropolis (comics). Too many possibilities for a merge of any two individual articles. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Keep as is[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen the number of watchers as a basis to keep an article. There's clearly substantial overlap between these two articles, as well as substantial fluff and non-specific content. Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article probably needs a cleanup, but the metropolis is clearly a notable topic - see scholarly articles such as [6]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan area should probably be merged to this page instead of the other way around. Lots of duplication and cleanup needed for sure. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's definitely some editing which needs to be done. I think we'd probably need to lose the list entirely and refocus the idea based on scholarly articles. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For instance this is a really interesting article. I may have a go at completely rewriting this. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with SportingFlyer above Asteramellus (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shields, Accomack County, Virginia

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

I've been PRODding my most recent batch of Virginia ones, but taking this one to AFD as I'm less confident here. Whitelaw's county history has references to the index to "Shield's P.O." and "Shield's Wharf", but unfortunately the volume those are in is not on Internet Archive. Those items are mentioned only on one page. Nothing in the Arcadia history of the county. Searching on newspapers.com is very difficult due to search engine noise, but I'm just getting passing references to surnames, the wharf, and a steamship landing that is probably the wharf. I don't see a WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND pass here, and substantive sourcing will be needed here especially given the vague name. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale has no established notability, except, perhaps, at a very local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Vihar

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

No single reference in support of the article. Gauravs 51 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Although some websites advertise to rent in this as a neighborhood, it's an army barracks. That's it. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Ka Thana district

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

Requesting for deletion because the Government of Rajasthan abolished this district. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that deletion would be the best option - somebody searching for this would probably want an article covering the same area now, and maybe an explanation of why it doesn't exist any more. Perhaps merge into List of districts of Rajasthan? Adam Sampson (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article for this area thats why i am requesting it for deletion see here TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:DEFUNCTS we keep former administrative units and notable per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But i want to share some information here that these are only announced to become a new district in future by the Ashok Gehlot government last year and now they are abolished by new government.TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Abolition or is no longer administered is not a valid rationale for deletion here.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's notable enough for a topic even though it's been abolished, though right now the state of the article is just marginally better than redirecting it somewhere. That's not an argument for redirecting, but it is an argument for improving it... SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp : as there are several pages of former districts still exist on Wikipedia

Example : South Arcot District (Madras Presidency)

WikiEdits2003 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pages may be redirected to the existing one i.e. Sikar district WikiEdits2003 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEFUNCTS and Abolition of states ,districts ,nations is not valid rationale for deletion and is notable as per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upper North Province, Maldives

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

The article lacks notability and only has one source. The main text of the article seems to be copy pasted across the below mentioned articles. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the following related pages due to the above mentioned reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Administrative divisions of the Maldives#Seven Provinces. Duplicative standalone articles that don't really say anything are not needed. Reywas92^Talk 01:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all without prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to put more work into any of these, as these were official government historical areas. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Also a first level administrative division. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are no longer first level administrative divisions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter - the fact they were makes them eligible, but the problem there is there's simply nothing to say about them at this current moment. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't temporary - there are thousands articles for former provinces, counties, districts, municipalities etc. WP:GEOLAND applies to any populated place, not just administrative divisions. The fact that these places were first level administrative divisions is an additional reason to keep the articles. Obi2canibe (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect all as above. There is apparently no need to say anything about these individually, and yes, if people think that GEOLAND means we have to keep these stubs, then that's another argument for getting rid of it, because it's clear that a subdivision of only a few years lifetime is only marginally notable as a whole, much less of its parts. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ignore guidelines just because some people don't like it. If you want to get rid of WP:GEOLAND, start a discussion and get consensus. Don't try to get your way through the back door by individually nominating articles for deletion. I see this far too often at AfD and CfD. Obi2canibe (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur district, India

Mirpur district, India (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)

Muzaffarabad District, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles do not satisfy WP:GNG as there is insufficient independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify their existence. The claim of the districts being part of India de jure primarily relies on sources mentioning the Indian government’s release of maps in 2019 depicting the districts as part of India. Separate articles are unnecessary for this aspect, as the existing Mirpur District, Muzaffarabad District and Kashmir conflict articles can address India’s inclusion of these districts on its maps as part of the broader Kashmir dispute. These articles were previously CSD’d, but the author has repeatedly restored them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources. Lacks notability. Previously deleted article was restored without any discussion. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries, even if these are not de-facto the case. Reliable sources support the existence of this administrative division as a de-jure administrative unit within Indian maps. For similar examples, see Mêdog County, Lhünzê County, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces. --Rvd4life (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do these examples apply here? I do not see any duplicate or redundant WP:POVFORKS for Medog County and Lhunze County like the ones you created for Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District. The example of Taiwan Province is not relevant here as it represents a larger entity, similar to Azad Kashmir. Are there any articles on smaller units of a disputed territory, like the ones you created for these districts, which are smaller parts of a larger disputed region such as Azad Kashmir? Furthermore, the last example you provided pertains to a governing body, not a territory. Why do you believe that creation of the disputed maps by India cannot be addressed within existing articles such as Kashmir conflict, Mirpur District, or Muzaffarabad District? Why is there a need for separate WP:POVFORKS for this? By your reasoning, we should also have articles like Ladakh, Pakistan, Srinagar District, Pakistan, and Baramulla District, Pakistan, etc., as the latter two are smaller units of a larger disputed territory controlled by India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the boundaries of the districts are not the same. India's boundaries reflect those pre-1947 in the area, whilst Pakistan has redrawn the boundaries since then. To respond to your point, China's Medog County claims the territory that India administers largely as the Upper Siang district, yet both articles exist separately. Furthermore, there aren't any maps from Pakistan showing district level boundaries beyond the LoC, so the debate about why they haven't been created is moot. --Rvd4life (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with Sheriff's nomination and his reasons described above for deletion of this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: duplicate articles for the districts of Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan. As parts of the larger Kashmir region, Wikipedia do not need separate articles for the areas administered by Pakistan but claimed by India and nor for those administered by India but claimed by Pakistan. Through inclusion to maps, these are similar to older claims by both countries over the regions of Kashmir without any administrative control. The dispute and claims are already mentioned in articles: Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District per Ind-Pak consensus of 2019, plus thoroughly explained at the main articles regarding the Kashmir region; Kashmir (specifically in section:Current status and political divisions) and Kashmir conflict (for instance the content: map legality starts with, "As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control.") MSLQr (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wikipedia maintains a series of articles about claimed territories of a country, though the article needs to be expanded for further relevance.Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xoocit I have addressed your logic here in my response to Rvd4life. Kindly review it and consider changing your vote to delete. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sheriff | ☎ 911 and MSLQr (talk Behappyyar (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rvd4life. desmay (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, you list the article Muzaffarabad District, India here as if this is a bundled nomination but the article is not tagged as being part of this AFD discussion and I assume the article creator was not informed of this AFD. So, I think this AFD just concerns the primary article mentioned in the page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Not sure how to bundle them, article creator is same for both articles and I left a note on the talk page of the other article providing the link for this AfD, would that suffice? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you formatted this AFD correctly (which is often done incorrectly in bundled nominations so kudos on that) but you didn't tag the article with an AFD tag. If you find it a challenge with Twinkle, in this case, you could cut and paste the AFD tag from the primary article under discussion here. But since the discussion has gone on for a week and I'm not sure if the participants considered the second article, I'm going to relist the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is not a strong consensus and to consider both articles for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 having been implemented, Mirpur district, India is indeed part of the map of the country. This is reflected in present-day maps of India, such as this one. As Rvd4life pointed out "it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries". This is no exception. CharlesWain (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanpulo

(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]
Merge and redirect to Pamalican per above. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep The article has issues but the resort in its own right is notable. Among others, it won an award seven times in a row, is covered in trade publications (also this one), has been written about in lifestyle magazines (also this one), and was even listed in the Michelin Guide. Now I think we need to clearly delineate the two as the island itself is also notable, but let's not jump the gun here and presume the resort itself isn't notable when it is. The better question to ask is whether there should be one article or two. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be one article, the topics hugely overlap and have just a few paragraphs each. CMD (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not try and treat the articles as static, please. Granted they haven't been edited since this AfD started, but it's not like the articles can be expanded so as to justify the existence of two articles, no? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said treats them as static. Anyone could expand any article at any time, and split a developed subarticle at any time. CMD (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that in this case where there are two articles, if the intention is to develop separate articles when there are enough sources, why merge them in the first place? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a more complete and informative experience for readers now, instead of not doing this for no reason other than some uncommitted future hypothetical that could happen in that future anyway. CMD (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a large number of sources that discuss Amanpulo the resort. There is enough information for a standalone article about Amanpulo's history, accommodations, amenities, and activities. Amanpulo began its history in 1993.
The island of Pamalican has a long history before that. Its early history: "The island was discovered by accident twice – initially by the seafaring villagers of the neighbouring Manamoc Island, who used it in the 18th century as a market garden to grow coconuts and corn, returning year after year to tend their crops and collect turtle eggs. They named it Pamalican, meaning to return, or go back." It "was once an important stop on the spice trade route between China and Borneo, but later doomed to centuries of obscurity". It was a family-run coconut plantation until the early 1990s. There is likely enough information for two standalone articles. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Sky Harbor. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. The fact that the resort is coterminous with the island is my concern. So it can be discussed in either of their talk pages. SBKSPP (talk)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Robles, Marissa (2008-11-29). "'Amanpulo had a spotlight over it!'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020081129e4bt00063.
  The article notes: "Before you start believing that the world spins in a hopeless whirl, think of Amanpulo. It is surely one adventure on your ‘101 Things to Do Before You Whine.' Experiencing this marvel of an island on the Sulu Sea, in the island group of Cuyo in Palawan, leaves one in a state of curious wonder, with nary a care for worrisome political and economic issues and petty personal upheavals. ... Consistent with all the Aman resorts worldwide, Amanpulo in Palawan embraces the cultural and natural landscapes it is set in. In the interiors, one notes the materials of clay, wood and bamboo. On the beach, the barbecue lighting uses baskets. The staff's uniform speaks of adapting to the culture, too. The marine sanctuary is pristine and free from garbage. The quality of the sand is consistent throughout the island of Pamalican, Amanpulo's home. Environment ranks high in Amanpulo's priorities. The vermi culture project, which recycles organic material into fertilizer, aims to give more jobs to residents of neighboring islands who produce fresh organic vegetables for guests. There's also the partnership with the Soriano Foundation in outreach programs on nearby Manamoc Island, where most of Amanpulo's workforce lives."
2. Lugo, Leotes Marie T. (2003-08-15). "Weekender - Travel & Tourism Ahhh... manpulo (a.k.a. lifestyle of the rich and famous)". BusinessWorld. Factiva BSWRLD0020030815dz8f0003h.
  The article notes: "I was dreaming and I didn't want to wake up! I was in Amanpulo - that super expensive high-end resort somewhere in Palawan that has hosted Hollywood stars, super models and the likes of the late John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Daryl Hannah, Robert de Niro and, if rumors were to be believed, Michael Jackson. It's a place I've only heard of when talking about the lifestyles of the rich and famous, which definitely is way out of my league, and actually stepping into the island seemed surreal. ... We made a brief stop in the clubhouse restaurant and bar, perhaps the heart of the resort. The clubhouse had an Oriental motif adorned by coconut shell tables, rattan chairs from Cebu and oriental wooden ornaments. It also houses the resort boutique and library, where guests can borrow books, magazines and even digital video discs. ... Amanpulo, consistent with its image as a private, secluded resort, only has 40 casitas in hillside and beach-side settings. Each casita can accommodate a maximum of three adults and two children below 12 years old. ... Most of the resort's guests are Europeans, Japanese and Hong Kong expatriates."
3. Matheson, Veronica (2005-06-12). "Luxuriate in Filipino island life". Sunday Herald Sun. p. 1. Factiva SUHERS0020050611e16c00084.
  The article notes: "Their sea "christening" is at Amanpulo (peaceful island), 300km south of the Philippines' capital, Manila, where guests -- no question you need to be wealthy to stay here -- have time for caring and sharing. ... The island is car-free, but each casita (bungalow) has a gas-powered golf cart for guests to move around the island. And while it is possible to circle the island by cart, most guests opt to explore via the beach, barefoot in the sand. ... Amanpulo, recently named the world's top luxury resort by a British travel guide, is one of the prized jewels in the Aman crown. ... Once a family-run coconut plantation, Pamalican Island was reborn as Amanpulo resort in 1994. The 40 casitas, in hillside and beachside settings, are modelled loosely on the Philippine bahay kubo (village home). Inside the casitas every attention is given to detail, from pebble-washed walls to coconut shell tables, rustic palm baskets, king-size beds and roomy marble bathrooms. Outdoor decks have cushioned sun lounges and hammocks swing from palm trees. ... And because of its remoteness, Amanpulo generates its own power, treats its own sewage, recycles scrap metal, creates compost for reforestation, has a desalination plant and an airfield."
4. Chua-Go, Ingrid (2010-04-04). "Amanpulo-heaven on earth". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020100405e64400005.
  The article notes: "If this is the first time you've heard of Amanpulo (which I highly doubt), let me tell you that this world-class resort nestled in the secluded and private Pamalican Island, Palawan, is one of the tropical havens favored by Hollywood royalty.But don't expect to be bumping into them, though, as the very reason for their visiting the resort is Amanpulo's über-discreet policy toward its guests. Even at full occupancy, you will hardly bump into anyone. ... What I truly enjoyed about Amanpulo's dining experience is that you will often bump into the island's F&B director Harish Nair, who never fails to greet each diner to ask about the food. And for dinner, there's Lagoon Club located on the other side of the island, which serves Vietnamese food, and again Beach Club, which serves Spanish food. I highly recommend the paella and the fideua. If you want, you can also ask the island's restaurant to prepare you a beachside dinner complete with bonfire! ... You can also explore the island, which is what we decided to do the next day, after another snorkeling trip. A brief but leisurely 10-minute walk on the beach from my casita led me to the island's tip, where a sandbar stretched out into the crystal-clear waters. This sandbar would have been the most ideal place to get a nice tan and a refreshing swim during the earlier hours of the day."
5. Kurosawa, Susan (2010-08-06). "Amanpulo". Wish. The Australian. Factiva NLWISH0020100805e6860000k.
  The article notes: "This is Amanpulo, an exclusive resort on Pamalican Island in the southwest of The Philippines, part of the Cuyo group. Opened by Singapore-based Amanresorts group in 1993, everything here is about the water; the nearest snorkelling spot is so close that it's simply dubbed House Reef, there are picnic sites from which you can don snorkel gear and stride off into gardens of clams. At the southern tip there's a channel of water known as Shark's Playground but, as guests are calmly reassured, these are happy little reef sharks. Still, you might prefer to observe their sinister shapes from one of Amanpulo's boats, zooming over schools of batfish in protected waters. Complimentary aquatic activities include sailing, kayaking and windsurfing; on the easy-catch menu are snapper, grouper, wahoo, mackerel, sweetlip, bonito and (for near-instant sashimi) tuna. ... Everyone's talking about The go-ahead philosophy of Amanresorts. After a lull early last decade, the group is steaming ahead with openings, particularly in China and India. Amanpulo is not the most glamorous of the range but it's arguably one of the friendliest and most fun. The Filipino staff bring an air of fiesta to proceedings. But it all runs like clockwork, too - leave your golf buggy casually parked and when you return it will be precisely positioned, with replenished bottled water."
6. Hwang, You-mee (2004-07-09). "Do everything, or nothing at all: Island resort on Sulu Sea offers the ultimate in luxury". The Korea Herald. Factiva KORHER0020040709e0790000s.
  The article notes: "Welcome to Amanpulo, an exclusive resort that occupies the entire island. Once a family-run coconut plantation, the site was transformed into its present form in December 1993 by Amanresort, which operates similar resorts around the world. An assistant offers a cold towel so you can freshen up, and after a brief tour of the island in an open-sided golf cart you are shown to your "casita," or small house. The buggy is your means of transportation throughout your stay at the resort. You're given a turtle-shaped key holder that comes with a key to your house and another for the buggy, as well as a map of the island. There are 40 individual guest houses dotted throughout the island: 29 on the beach, seven on the hillside and four in treetops. Treetop and hillside accommodations give you a spectacular view of the island and the surrounding Sulu Sea, especially the two deluxe hillside cabins. ... Amanpulo also has more than a handful of great scuba diving spots for both novice and experienced divers. Equipment and lessons from skilled instructors are offered at the Dive Shop. Children ages 8 and up can also learn scuba diving in the pool. You can also walk around the island's perimeter, which takes about 90 minutes."
7. "King of your island". Mint. 2011-03-25. Factiva HNMINT0020110326e73p0002t.
  The article notes: "Home to Amanpulo, the Aman Resorts' lone foray in the Philippines, Pamalican Island is a private island 300km south-west of Manila. The location, in the Sulu Sea, was once an important stop on the spice trade route between China and Borneo, but later doomed to centuries of obscurity. Today, it is one of the most secluded luxury locations in Asia, and provides an otherworldly privacy worth flying halfway across the world for. The only way to get there is the Amanpulo's own turboprop. A hangar at Manila airport hides the Amanpulo's dedicated lounge, and the journey-and the attentive, invisible service one expects of a hotel of this calibre-begins there. Riding in the 19-seat plane across the seas to the Amanpulo's private airstrip, you get the sense upon landing on Pamalican Island that there will be nothing but sun, sea and pina coladas for as long as you're there. Instead of beach huts, your nights are spent in large casitas, modelled after local village homes, either right on the beach or perched among the trees on the hills. Each casitas comes with its own chef and maid to look after your culinary and other daily needs, and with a buggy so that you can explore the island."
8. Noone, Richard (2014-10-12). "Fantasy island a divine reality". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "Operated by luxury group Aman Resorts, Amanpulo is on Pamalican Island, a relative speck in the Cuyo Archipelago of the Philippines. The island was discovered by accident twice – initially by the seafaring villagers of the neighbouring Manamoc Island, who used it in the 18th century as a market garden to grow coconuts and corn, returning year after year to tend their crops and collect turtle eggs. They named it Pamalican, meaning to return, or go back. In 1967, one of the Philippines’ wealthiest families, the Sorianos of San Miguel Brewery fame, discovered it while cruising aboard the motor yacht Seven Seas. ... The family partnered with Aman Resorts and the first villas opened to guests in 1993."
9. Nicholson, Sarah (2011-04-02). "In the Lap of Luxury". The Advertiser. ProQuest 859717468.
  The article notes: "I am staying at the Amanpulo resort on Pamalican, one of the 1768 islands in the undeveloped Palawan Provence, 350km south of Manila. ... Amanpulo, the boutique resort that occupies all of Pamalican Island, is a 60-minute charter flight from Manila, and a haven of tranquillity and barefoot luxury in the waters of the Sulu Sea. Unlike other upmarket resorts, where staff wear stuffy uniforms and are schooled to be invisible, Amanpulo is all casual elegance. The property has some captivating rough edges that make me feel like I have settled in and become part of island life rather than just another guest staying in a posh suite for a few days. ... Pamalican was home to a working coconut plantation as recently as the early 1990s, and 85 per cent of the staff come from the neighbouring island of Manamoc, rather than fancy hospitality schools in Manila."
10. Prieto-Valdes, Tessa (2005-09-18). "Blissful in Amanpulo". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020050917e19i0000e.
  The article notes: "Amanpulo guests stay in spacious casitas, complete with a luxurious bath and dressing area. Nestled among tropical foliage, the casitas are patterned after the bahay kubo dwelling and were designed by architect Bobby Manosa. Each casita maintains a modern flair and is remarkably well-kept. Guests are also given a private buggy to explore the island. ... Now that my soon-to-be-wed friend Kris Aquino is a converted beach lover, I will suggest that she honeymoon with her beau James Yap in Amanpulo. The fact is that it is one of the best resorts in the world. While swimming in their pool, Dennis met a Scottish guy who said it was the most beautiful pool he had ever been in, bar none. Thinking that the Scot must have just arrived in Asia, Dennis asked him how he could make such a hyperbolic statement."
11. Radnor, Abigail (2012-12-08). "Six great island getaways for winter: Diego Della Valle has made millions from Tod's loafers. But can he cobble together the crumbling Coliseum?". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "Set the scene inspired by native Filipino dwellings, it is all timber frames and rattan roofs, making it the epitome of fuss-free chic. So this one's a little rustic? Not quite. On swimming out to the floating raft bar you'll be greeted with divans, towels and calamansi juice. And the rooms? Not "rooms", casitas: small houses. Choose between a beach casita within stumbling distance of warm, lapping waves or a treetop casita with views of a tropical landscape."
12. Hryciw, Matt (2019-11-15). "The ultimate luxury retreat in the Philippines: A Philippine private-island paradise, Amanpulo is the ultimate tranquil treat, says Matt Hryciw". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "This is where the use of superlatives to describe Amanpulo’s biggest asset seems unavoidable: if you’re a sun-worshipper or simply love floating in a crystal clear, shallow sea above schools of colourful fish all by yourself, this is unparalleled heaven. Guests at Amanpulo can choose from two types of accommodation. First there are the 42 private, stand-alone rooms like mine called ‘casitas’, which are either cleverly tucked behind the coconut palms along the beach or nestled into the island’s lush interior."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amanpulo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These very excerpts don't treat the topics as distinct. "Once a family-run coconut plantation, Pamalican Island was reborn as Amanpulo resort in 1994", "Welcome to Amanpulo, an exclusive resort that occupies the entire island. Once a family-run coconut plantation, the site was transformed into its present form in December 1993", "after a brief tour of the island in an open-sided golf cart you are shown to your "casita," or small house", "you get the sense upon landing on Pamalican Island that there will be nothing but sun, sea and pina coladas", "Guests are also given a private buggy to explore the island". The Noone, Richard excerpt is entirely about Pamalican Island, it's not even about the time period of the resort! CMD (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided more analysis here that there is enough coverage to have one article about the resort (1993–present) and one article about the island (when it was used as a spice trade route centuries ago, to the 18th century, to the present). There is so much coverage of Amanpulo that if both the resort (Amanpulo) and island (Pamalican) were merged to a single article, Amanpulo could be the right place to have all this information. Cunard (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it doubtful the resort on the island would take WP:NOPAGE title preference over the island itself, especially as the island maintains its current name. CMD (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title and WP:COMMONNAME. It is possible that if there is a single article, the common name would be Amanpulo. Many sources focus on Amanpulo the resort rather than than Pamalican the island. It would require a survey of the literature to determine the right title. Cunard (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of commonname. Overlapping topics will often have different common names. 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) CMD (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the resort covers the entire island, it does seem reasonable, and there seems to be a rough consensus to merge, but I'm not sure I see a consensus as to which title the merged article should be at.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I'm not sure this passes WP:NCORP. Anything important can be merged to the actual article on the island. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most vacationgoers have heard of "Amanpulo", but not "Pamalican"; most people may even think the name of the island per se is "Amanpulo". See page view stats, with Amanpulo leading 5:1. I'd even argue merge Pamalican to Amanpulo as per WP:GEONATURAL, as the island per se was not notable until the resort was built, or redirect Pamalican to Amanpulo. So yes, Amanpulo is notable, and very much so (denying this fact approaches Quiboloy levels of falsehoods LOL let's be real!), while you can argue Pamalican isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sky Harbor, Cunard and Howard the Duck. -Ian Lopez @ 10:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am leaning towards keeping this, but merging the island article into the resort; they are essentially a fork situation. A hotel or resort can be notable based upon reputable travel guides and reviews. FWIW, I have travel plans for Palawan for later this year, but to a different resort. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salavatabad (mountain)

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 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!} 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The US CIA has mapped most of the world in very detailed older maps you can find online. I found this one [7] from the "Iran, Series 1501, Joint Operations Graphic (Air) 1:250,000" set, map NI 38-4 Sanandaj, Iran. Salavatabad village is nicely detailed. You can see individual "Kuh"s (mountains) marked on the map, though a peak of 8747 elevation just east of the village is not labeled. I don't see a peak marked Salavatabad but i only have looked quickly at this map. And the current text of the article doesn't really match what the photo shows, which is a mountain close to Salavatabad. The text says the range lies west of Sanandaj, but that city is already west of Salavatabad. But maybe this map helps someone figure out the mystery.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Tree, Indiana

(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]

Weak Delete. A source in the article say: tiny community... with a post office and a few businesses, but it was never a thriving village. There does not seem to be much more detail except the presence of a tree, and the years. Without WP:SIGCOV on Google Scholar / Google Books / Google News, this should not stay. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To add on, I managed to find one article of SIGCOV at Newspapers.com written in 1958. To summarize: in 1958 there is only a store and empty house there. The storeowner at the area said that there was previously a tree next to a blacksmith store, but both were long gone by then. The tree may have been an oak. There were twice post offices at Lone Tree until they shut down. That's really not much content for a Wikipedia article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Updated my vote. We've found some sources but the content is not much. Also the sources are slightly contradictory, apparently the post office started in 1857 and the community was founded in 1860? starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sources are almost to the point where I would prefer a redirect to Wright Township, Greene County, Indiana but not quite and I don't think there is any reason to wait at this point. If someone can find better sources they can recreate a redirect or article then. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Highly notable? no. But I think sources like what Starship.paint noted above -- "tiny community... with a post office and a few businesses, but it was never a thriving village" -- and the 1958 Indianapolis news article -- shows that it was once a small but known populated place in the early history of this rural midwestern US county. Not beyond debate, but that is usually enough to keep an article on a populated place.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milowent: article is less than 100 words at the moment (I've updated it based on the SIGCOV I found). WP:SIZE says < 150 words ... If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider merging it with a related article. What do you think about a merge as Elichi404 said? I could implement that. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think a merge to a township article in a situation like this one isn't the best for readers, its just a workaround to use a formally recognized entity that doesn't really have the unique identity that the smaller location has. I see you found more information below so we are doing well with making this article more useful.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GEOLAND. Starship.paint has identified that this was indeed a "community", which typically means there were people living there. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magnolia677: - could you clarify, when you say GEOLAND, are you saying this is one of the "Populated, legally recognized places", "Populated places without legal recognition", or "Disputed regions"? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated, legally recognized places". Magnolia677 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - please explain how it is legally recognized? I don't want to assume. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See [8]. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - you provided a link to the "Geographic Names Information System". WP:GEOLAND says that The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. The USGS says regarding GNIS at question 19: Populated Place represents a named community with a permanent human population, usually not incorporated and with no legal boundaries, ranging from rural clustered buildings to large cities and every size in between. The boundaries of most communities classified as Populated Place are subjective and cannot be determined ... Incorporated populated places (those with legally defined boundaries) have two records in GNIS: a Civil feature and a Populated Place feature ... Most communities are not legally incorporated and therefore will have only one entry, which will be classified as Populated Place. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I located a bit more about Lone Tree:

Lone Tree was located along Old Terre Haute Road, a pioneer wagon route between Louisville, Kentucky, and Terre Haute, Indiana. The author writes "in early times the names of New Albany, Salem, Wood's Ferry, Smith's Ferry, Black Swamp, Scaffold Prairie, Lone Tree, Splung Creek and Terre Haute were all very familiar household words."
Not the most reliable source, but one contributor here said she grew up across the street from the store in the photo.
This random entry in a 1959 book entitled Motor Vehicle Theft as a Federal Crime: A Study of 400 Offenders, states "Carle was born in Lone Tree, Indiana, on January 16, 1918." --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first point is usable as actual content. I have added it into the article, which is now 112 words (within 150 where merge is suggested) and less than 700 characters (far less than the 1500 that DYK requires for new articles). starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being born someplace, and living in that place, all contribute to the notion that this was a real place with real people living there. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum size requirement for articles, so long as the information is varifyable and the subject is notable. AFD's like this often hinge on whether the place was ever populated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places without legal recognition have no presumption of notability. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND as a recognized community with several businesses and a post office at one time. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Editorofthewiki: - recognised by who? Legally recognised? starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography-related proposed deletions