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

Lake Grouse

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

No indication of significant coverage in article or a BEFORE search - the sources in the article are trivial mentions and Google Earth links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alaska. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. It's a small little lake, does pass WP:GEOFEAT especially once you realise it's mis-titled: "Grouse Lake." SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I assume you mean WP:NATFEAT, as GEOFEAT is for artificial features. NATFEAT is a not a presumption of notability and still requires coverage that meets WP:GNG. What sources do you see that meet that standard? Those currently in the article are Google Earth imagery (sources 1, 4, 5, 6), two directory listings (2, 3), three sentences in a fishing guide (7), and one that does not mention the article subject at all (8). None of those qualify as significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed volcano (Ibugos)

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

Volcano is not listed as Holocene nor Pleistocene in GVP's website or by PHIVOLCS as active or potentially active. Insufficient evidence that this even exists. Scoria (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Scoria (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't even see how we can have a redirect from this. If nobody could be bothered to name this it's hard to see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brahuistan

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

This page no have sources and this page just for fun,Brhaui peoples known as Baloch and Balochistani himself for that see Dr. Mahrang Baloch from langove tribe with Brahui ethnolinguistic and was Born in Mangocher of Kalat zone that in this article nominated for imaginary Brahuistan But she never said that she is from Brahuistan and never said Brahuistan is a region She also known her as a Baloch and Balochistani and never was a region with Brahuistan name in Khanate of Kalat documents Moshtank (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (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/2025 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – A well sourced article from published works though it has a couple of citation needed tags. The nominator's claims "This page no have sources and this page just for fun" is in WP:POV fashion and their refer to Mahrang Baloch is completely irrelevant here for the nomination cause. It seems they have not done WP:BEFORE or may be (as a new user) they are not aware of it. MŠLQr (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little bit and redirect to Brahui people. There are mentions of it being a proposed name when the British took over and one or two sources claiming there's a movement to create it, but not much more than that. Far WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – This is a well sourced article from published works although it could be improved upon. Abstrakt (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – The rationale for deletion by the nominee reads more like WP:JDL. The article contained four RS, I have added another. Rest of their arguments are WP:OR. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Missouri

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

Already merged with "List of Municipalities in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. Even at that, a {{Being merged}} tag was removed from this list last year by Nythar (talk · contribs) sayingno such consensus exists (in reference to the proposed merger). (For what it's worth, a similar tag was not removed from the list of cities in Missouri, which the nominator has also proposed to delete.) It would not surprise me if this nomination ends up not leading to anything, but at this time have little opinion beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Villages are by no means so different that they should be listed separately from the list of all municipalities. This is purely redundant and serves no purpose, List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigation but with data that isn't just bulleted blue links. You should merge the lead info as well. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Category:Lists of villages in the United States and Category:Lists of villages by country These seem to be accepted lists used by country and others. This seems to be global category listings. And as usual with Wikipedia, different styles for different places.— Maile (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, only a few other states have village lists, and in cases like List of villages in Massachusetts, the villages are not incorporated so they must be listed separately from actual municipalities, or in Guam, they are all of the municipalities and this is the only list for it. Several others in the category are the primary municipality list where the villages are included, just like List of municipalities in Missouri! In Missouri, villages are incorporated municipalities that are already listed in the main list, and there is nothing special about them that justifies a duplicate listing. Villages in other countries are obviously going to be too different to compare, but the style for Missouri should be to list the incorporated places together, without pointless redundancy. The fact that village lists are accepted elsewhere has no bearing on this page. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Missouri

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

Same reason as "List of villages in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. I don't have much of an opinion beyond that at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. The "proposed merge" was not a formal merge discussion, either. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? There should be two lists: List of municipalities, and List of census-designated places. Those two are comprehensive and do not overlap. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The gallery and lead info should be retained, but List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigational information. The highlighting of county seats is also nice, but there doesn't have to be a separate duplicative page here. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong in keeping the list of cities of a state. NavjotSR (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that there is a list of cities in the municipalities list... Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, this is a valid and standard list for U.S. states, but the existing List of municipalities in Missouri seems best to house this.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state. Different styles by different cities, but this does seem to be acceptable within Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the pages in that category are actually lists of municipalities, and many of those with city lists should also be merged (though in several cases like Alaska and Idaho, city is the only type of municipality). Just because this article title is acceptable in other situations doesn't mean we need duplicative pages for this state when all content is in another page already. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete As the user who overhauled the Municipality List because of the Merge suggestion at the top, I did want to reproduce the same formatting at the cities one, county seats highlighted, more color coding, etc. but did not know how to do at the time. As for the introduction and background information, I think that should be moved over.
It does not make sense to me why there should be a list of cities, villages, and municipalities, especially when municipalities is both comprehensive and clear, while most readers may not understand the legal distinctions of what constitutes a village vs a city, nor do they really need to know that, and if they did it is in the table for the municipalities.
Additionally, I know that the Municipalities List is accurate and up-to-date data from the state of Missouri, and the other articles are not. If the cities and villages articles are to be kept, I think their data needs to be overhauled.

SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kante pind

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

Does this even exist? Is "Aalam Garh" a human or a location? It appears to be a location. Polygnotus (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it کیت which is located here? Polygnotus (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must be this, Google calls it "Kaint". Polygnotus (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct — it is Kaint (Urdu: کینت), but I will support its deletion in the absence of reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources covering the location. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. These UNREFERENCED articles should never have been accepted on Wikipedia to begin with, in my view...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland, Indiana

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

No other sign of a town here, so as the source says, probably just a station stop with a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 3 May 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)} 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of official settlement Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a similar situation to what happened to Joppa, but here there's no proof that the town existed at all, other than as a railroad stop. Seems that this article was a WP:BADIDEA from the get-go; just because there are records doesn't mean it's notable. JTZegers (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at surrounding towns you can tell this isn't really a 'settlement'. Rutland consists of a couple of farmhouses at a railroad xing; contrast this with Hibbard, Indiana and Burr Oak, Indiana just up the railroad; they are tiny but clearly settlements, having a couple of streets and businesses.

128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Dog Beach

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced, and not notable enough to have a standalone article. Most of the article discusses topics that are only tangentially related. Better to merge the relevant information into Sato Project and/or Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. Stonkaments (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Danish acquisition of California

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

Delete or Redirect to American_expansionism_under_Donald_Trump#Danish_and_Greenlandic_reactions. This is a classic case of turning confusing existence with notability and goes against what Wikipedia is not (in this case not a newspaper). All the citations were published the same day. As such, this does not have lasting coverage. I also believe that this event fails WP:EVENT inclusion criteria #4 specifically as this is a viral phenomena. It is WP:TRUMPCRUFT-adjacent as much like not everything Trump says deserves an article, not every response to what he says deserves an article either. Mpen320 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 19 references in the article, are they genuinely not enough?🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. My nomination does not ding it for quantity of references. It is that the event does not meet WP:EVENT.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then I say that it should be converted to a redirect. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A facetious reponse, not anything serious. Obviously does not need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reactionary article that does not demonstrate WP:LASTING notability Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Between WP:NOTNEWS and the inability of anyone here, apparently, to write a sentence where three paragraphs would do, this is a hugely WP:UNDUE prose dump about an extremely brief snark-back at Trump's assertion about Greenland. Heck the Gulf-of-Anything-But-Mexico snarkage had a longer span; they lasted maybe two weeks. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, Indiana

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

Here the cited source actually says there was nothing at "Harris station" except a grain elevator and a post office. And there's nothing there now, so not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mladost, Varna

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

No refs on the page for many years. Wikis in other languages do not offer much. Maybe there are relevant refs in local languages that show the GNG is met. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bulgaria. JMWt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look in Bulgarian sources shows routine notability - it's one of the largest districts of Varna after all - but it's such a simple stub that what little is there could just be merged to Varna until someone wants to have a better crack at this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Downey Corner, Indiana

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

A corner with no documentation besides GNIS and appearing in a list of places in a history of the county. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a T-intersection in the middle of nowhere. The name does appear on USGS maps going back at least to 1959, but none of those show anything more than a farmhouse at the site. Clearly not a community, fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Båntjern

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

This is an article about a mountain lake in Norway -- fails notability guidelines, by virtue of being a random lake in Norway. There are 300,000 lakes in Norway. Besides that, most of the article fails WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:NOTGUIDE; it talks about the amenities of the lake, like hikes, grills, and a nearby campsite. Serious NPOV issues, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Needless to say no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Norway. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's not a "mountain lake" at all, it's located on the city outskirts and used as a hiking spot/campgrounds. "Needless to say" doesn't seem to hold water (!), why would that be needless to say? Where did you do your WP:BEFORE that is not Google? Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say was poor semantics, I apologize. I did my WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, Gbooks, GScholar, and norwegian google. I said it was a "mountain lake" because the article classifies it as a "tarn," which is a mountain lake. There some things, like "woah guys this lake exists," but imo it still fails under WP:NOTGUIDE-- I could be wrong, and if so, please let me know w/sources etc. This article is also an orphaned article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shor, Indiana

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

An actual camp, now called Campshore but before that, a resort catering to Orthodox Jews (there are numerous journal references to this effect) and before that, acto this Arcadia book, named "Laughrey Club". Their claim that it was inundated and is gone is not true, but the testimony to the "Camp Shor" phase is clear if not terribly deep. I'm a bit dubious as to its own notability though our article on Young Israel might have a place for it. In any case, it is plainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Everything by this lazy creator who bulk-created false articles. Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Indiana

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

A spot on the railroad just east of Newton, close enough that on Streetview you can see the structures of the latter off in the distance. This is now the site of a warehouse and nothing else; back in the late 1950s there was a different, smaller building and a single house, but hardly a town. Seems to have just been a rail spot, though at least it amde it onto the topos without the help of the highway department. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Mangoe. A quick Google search turns up nothing notable on the subject. Only two results relating to the topic. One result is this article, and the other is its entry on mapquest. Neither entries show anything notable. Editor113u47132 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though i added a source to a 1955 county history that calls it a "small hamlet", it appears to be the location of what was a grain elevator and a house or two, also called "Perkin's Switch". U.S. 24 bends around those buildings, it appears, so one can imagine the place name became Perkins but its a stretch to call it a "hamlet".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kottikulam

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

This Indian town doesn't really have any notability, other than having a train station in it. Article only really has a name and a non-absolute location (only relative to other areas). Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but at worst, redirect to Kotikulam railway station Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete without prejudice to recreation with reliable sources. Both this and the station article are essentially sourced entirely to GMaps, which is not a reliable source. The locations are also not consistent with each other. The station article is more likely correct but as it stands in a certain isolation its relationship with a supposed village is unclear. I can't read Hindi so I'm not of much use in writing here, but my recollection is decent articles on these villages can generally be at least partly sourced from the census. At any rate, given that the location information is all we have, and it is rather suspect, starting over is the route to take. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion stands that as long as the Kotikulam railway station article exists, it makes sense to redirect Kottikulam there, since it's the same word with a different spelling Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Sustainable City

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of the subject. None of the sourcing in this article is independent of the UAE government, resulting in a ludicrously credulous and promotional article of this UAE government project. Thenightaway (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns raised. I am currently improving the article by adding more independent, reliable sources that provide neutral coverage of the subject. Additionally, I am revising the content to ensure a strictly factual and non-promotional tone, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Given that the project has received coverage in independent media outlets (such as [Shurooq]), I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I respectfully request additional time to complete these improvements. Below are the links for your reference.

https://shurooq.gov.ae/portfolio/sharjah-sustainable-city

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/property/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-dh2-5-billion-in-sales

https://gulfnews.com/uae/watch-a-sustainable-city-rises-in-sharjah-with-smart-solar-homes-driverless-shuttle-1.86314388

https://www.wam.ae/en/article/dvef0-sharjah-sustainable-city-community-integrating

https://property.constructionweekonline.com/sharjah-sustainable-city-pioneering-eco-friendly-living-and-boosting-uae-real-estate/ 94.203.35.126 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are independent of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unfortunately, the UAE does not have freedom of press, and there are hardly any newspapers, making coverage on topics that would appear to be notable by residents be limited. Gulf News and Khaleej Times are going to be your best bets for coverage on anything. This project is definitely notable regardless of the bias of the sources. Also, the place has won quite a few awards (see the article), which is a sure sign of notability. jolielover♥talk 19:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As pointed out by the nom, none of the sources are independent from the UAE government. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography

Geography

Geography-related proposed deletions