Wiki English
Wiki EnglishWiki DeutschWiki Nederlands

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Geography

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Geography.

< Wiki: WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Geography
Deletion Sorting
Project

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. 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.
    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.
    Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Geography.
    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.


wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Geography Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Geography

White Rock, Maine

Fails GNG and cites zero sources, I attempted to be bold and find a few reliable sources, but found none. Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megoulianitika

Article consists of a single sentence of content, along with two Greek books. Dispute whether this is enough to make the article notable. Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Crossing, Indiana

Another bit of an oddity in that it shows up rather late (1960s), but it's not a suburban development or anything like that. As far as I can tell, it is the road of that name crossing the railroad tracks, though I can't get anything that says that. Even before I took steps to exclude the shopping center on the outskirts of Indianapolis, hits were down in the clickbait range; most are real estate hits, especially for an "at Perry Crossing" complex which is actually a mile or so west. Book hits are all either fed gazetteer stuff, other fed pubs, or chance juxtapositions. Maybe this is a locale, but I have nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it doesn't appear on maps until the 60s, it was likely an informal local term that somehow got added to a map, then into GNIS, then here, where we have invented a nonexistent community. Nothing found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Una Mamea Park

Apparently this is some sort of a weird local controversy, it's been covered a couple of times by Jutarnji list[1], Nova TV[2], Večernji list[3]. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for promotional activities, and at the same time the controversy itself does not rise to the level of being worthy of describing by the encyclopedia. Joy (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vesta, Indiana

Another "no there there" spot, I was able to penetrate the veil of searching and get a couple of hits that weren't reassuring. Baird mentions it in passing several times, once calling it a town and once referring to the post office, but doesn't say anything about it directly. A bank plat map of the county from 1918 shows the name, but there's nothing there but several farms. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slatecut, Indiana

Another post office back entered to GNIS from the 1876 state atlas: at least that's what Baird says, and given that it seems to be a nondescript rail point, I can believe that. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, Indiana

Here we have a puzzle. There are two data implying that this a rail point. First, the label starts out right next to the tracks before drifting south on more recent maps, towards a string of houses on Rt. 60. Second, GMaps informs us that the name of the road that crosses the tracks at this point is named "Wilson Switch Rd." Against this I have, well, nothing, because searching is pretty much hopeless. The question is whether that string of houses is now known as Wilson or not, and here I draw a blank. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting one, partly because there seem to be multiple names associated with the same location. A 1908 map identifies the settlement as "Dallas", while others like this plat map show it as "Wilson". (An 1875 map gives it as "Wilson Station" and notes an accompanying mill.) When time permits I'll aim to check the local histories in more detail, but the fact that it's been consistently present on area maps for the last 150 years suggests it was at one point an actual settlement, so for now I think it's best to keep it. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searching for just Wilson got me nowhere, so I tried Wilson Switch, and I got some interesting results. A 1973 story about sales tax called Wilson Switch a community of 300, but this 1991 story about the local landfill just refers to the locals as "Wilson Switch Road residents", as do later stories about landfill projects. Earlier mentions of Wilson Switch were mostly about car accidents or railway incidents in the area, which doesn't clarify much. Wilson is still on the latest Indiana state highway map, though I don't know how thorough Indiana is about vetting small communities. Not sure which way I lean on this one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Məlikzadə

A one sentence page that fails WP:GNG. It has been like that for around 10 years now. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Azerbaijan. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On the map, it shows up north of Gülüzənbinə and has enough houses that I don't doubt (contrary to about a hundred AFDs on US locations) that it's populated. However, they are very close to eachother and a case might be made that these are constituent parts of a larger village. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geschichte: in the two articles I found, Məlikzadə and Gülüzənbinə were mentioned as 2 different villages. The frustrating thing is that most likely a very different spelling would have been used in Soviet and pre-Soviet times, I can't find how it was written then. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for a village, there is no requirement for much more info that what is available in the article. It's a village, it has coords, it is located in a municipality. Here there is mention (WP:RS?) on Gypsy population being resettled in Melikzade in by Shah Abbas the Great as a measure to suppress local rebellions, seems it is was of the main sites of Gypsy population in Azerbaijan. [4] confirms same point, and affirms that they are Persian speakers. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • add Keep, a separate village should be ok for notability per WP:NPLACE. --Soman (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Separate village. Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peatfold Burn

It's rare a google search returns no results, but here we are. Given this, and the fact this is merely a geographic formation, this fails WP:NPLACE by a long shot. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A look at the reference given shows that the correct name of this feature is Burn of Peatfold. Using that produces a few hits, though I would tend to doubt its notability nonetheless, as for comparison we have deleted articles on German bachs of which we could only determine that they existed. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searches for either term get few Google hits and many of the results seems to be for things around the burn rather than the burn its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Grove, Indiana

This was back-entered onto the maps from GNIS, which cites an 1876 atlas of the state. Baird's History of Clark County, Indiana on p. 100 has a very brief reference to it as a post office, and I found nothing else of relevance other than that there was a school there at some point. I just don't see that there was ever a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No information found; furthermore, the coordinates don't match the description in Baird's, which says Sylvan Grove was one quarter mile south of Memphis, while the coordinates are for a site about a mile southeast of Memphis. Someone made a mistake somewhere, and we might be able to figure out where if we had information, which we do not. Thus, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills, Clark County, Indiana

A NN subdivision built sometime in the 1950s/'60s. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This Subdivision. Local papers have few mentions. 1-2, here is an example [5]James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Maps

no RS outside of IndGoV sources Sohom (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, No sources or coverage found of the subject. Only primary sources have been located, which fail to establish the notability required for a standalone article. Grabup (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant, Cass County, Indiana

According to the county history source, this "nearly extinct" town never really took off in the first place. This is the kind of place that gives WP:GEOLAND a bad name, because even though one can use the two sources to give a location and something of a history, there's no way this place passess any real notability standard, and so I predict we will be left arguing whether this was a real unincorporated communitytown or not. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The history of Cass County, Indiana [6] has one mention of a Mount Pleasant, and it's Mount Pleasant, Ohio. If that source doesn't have anything we don't have much to go by. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Basin

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, 1 source providing a dictionary definition, plus an WP:UNSOURCED quasi-duplicate of Caribbean#Countries and territories list. Whatever else this article might have been intended for, is better served by List of Caribbean islands or Caribbean Sea. It has been a redirect in the past, that could work instead of deletion, but then we must agree on the best target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The discussion has evolved a lot since I commenced it three days ago. Now 4 editors (including myself as nom) are in favour of Disambiguation, and 2 editors are in favour of Keep, while nobody is in favour of outright Deletion or a Redirect anymore. Just want to note that, because the latter two are the only options I suggested in my original rationale above. NLeeuw (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Reywas92: I see you've just turned it into a redirect to Caribbean. I'm not opposed to that outcome, but isn't this a bit of a premature move after I have just initiated this AfD? NLeeuw (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, I was using the easy-merge tool and had the page up since before your nomination so I didn't even see that when I saved it five minutes later! I undid that and will vote redirect to Caribbean. The one source is an analysis of the breadth of terms that can apply to this region, all of which can have different geographic and political definitions, so I see no basis for a separate article as if this were a distinct or well-defined concept. The see also links for the US program use the political definition that includes some non-bordering countries, so this is pointless. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Haha I already thought that might have been going on as we acted almost at the same time. No worries. :) NLeeuw (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In light of the comment below I would also support disambiguation However, I am still strongly opposed to keeping the page. Even with the added information, I don't see the need for stand-alone article. The origin of the term for the Caribbean Basin Initiative belongs on that article, and the rest is just generically about the region. Yes, the term is used – inconsistently, including for this Initiative and as described by [7] – but even if Basin countries are related in various ways however defined, a separate page isn't warranted. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not OR or SYNTH - in fact, a very easy WP:BEFORE search as the defined area is discussed by many books and scholarly articles dating back years including [8] [9] [10] [11]. These just scratch the surface - there was a history section at one point that was deleted for lack of sourcing, wondering if restoring and sourcing it would be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a disambiguation page to disambiguate w/ Caribbean, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983, Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act. It's clear from the vast array of reliable sources and uses that "Caribbean Basin" is a generic term for the Caribbean Sea and countries in the region. The article as it stands relies on one source to separate out Barbados and the Bahamas as not part of the Caribbean Basin, but most other uses include all regional countries in the term and treat it as an equivalent term to "Caribbean region." It would be original research for an article to rely on a single (and tendentious) definition to somehow conjure "Caribbean Basin" into existence as a separate term. My reason for turning this into a disambig page rather than a redirect is to cover the various U.S. government laws and initiatives employing the term (and that include the Bahamas and Barbados, natch). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Disambiguate per Dclemens' sensible reasoning and a lot of the competing definitions which may lead to a WP:POVFORK with Caribbean if this is not done. I think that's the first time I've gotten to vote that in an AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        A DP might be the best solution here. I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome either. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I've expanded the article with reliable sources. Based on the sources I've seen which I've added to the article (see article), this appears to be a specific geographical region, which in part, but not exclusively, is determined by political and economic considerations. In someway, similar to the Middle Belt, and other regional articles, etc. The subject is notable in its own right, with plenty of WP:RS discussing the topic in dephth, and maybe we should be mindful not to confuse the general reader between a geographic region/basin (which are notable), and an economic or trade program like Caribbean Basin Initiative, instituted by statute law like Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983. There is a huge difference between these and perhaps we should be mindful not to lump this article to other articles which would be wrong, and might also confuse the reader. In my view, to merge with another article would be like discussing two separate unrelated subjects in the same article. In the end, it may push the community to have to create the same article which was previously created and deleted, just to separate the two topics, and would send us back to square one. I haven't even scratched the surface, but from the sources I've seen so far, I believe this article can be expanded even further. On a side note, would the nom kindly transclude this AfD to to alert Wiki: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa so that Wiki: WikiProject African diaspora are also automatically alerted? African Diaspora get their notifications from Wiki: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups or Wiki: WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa. Many thanks.Tamsier (talk)
      These additions don't deal with the fact that there is no consensus among the sources on what defines the "Caribbean Basin" versus just the "Caribbean." As the current revision of the article notes, the US Caribbean Basin Initiative excluded Cuba and Nicaragua. One sentence says "This means countries like Barbados and The Bahamas, which are culturally and politically Caribbean, are not included.[2]" (And the list in the article does indeed exclude them.) Later on, a statement in the article says "It is customary to include Bermuda and the Bahamian Archipelago within this region, although they are located in the Atlantic Ocean outside the arc, since they share the cultural and historical legacy of the countries of the Lesser Antilles." So what is it? The more the article gets developed, the more it will just turn into a content fork of Caribbean. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Excellent observation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Dclemens1971, I think that is a matter for the reliable secondary sources to decide, not for us to define it, as to try and do so here would constitute WP:OR. We report on what the reliable secondary sources say with respect to weight, and leave it to the general reader to make up their mind. If we go down the route of trying to define it here, that would constitute WP:OR. The differences in definition as per sources, however, should not be grounds for deletion. In situations like that, we simply report per weight as per Wiki guidelines.Tamsier (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            But if the reliable sources don't even have a common agreement on what "Caribbean Basin" means or if it's different from "Caribbean," why bother having an article about it? Do we need an article to debate the semantics of the term "Caribbean Basin," because that's what we have now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              I think there is general agreement. Part of the problem is that the agreement doesn't match what's currently in the actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this still isn't really a "specific geographical region" in that the geographical area/first sentence isn't even accurate in most cases. The book you added "The Caribbean Basin: An International History" does include Barbados and the Bahamas, as well as El Salvador. Certainly we can acknowledge that Caribbean island nations are historically and politically related to the Central American and northern South American countries, but I don't feel like we need a stand-alone article to say that. We could draftify the page, but I'm not sure what sort of expansion you say can be done actually has to be done here – and not somewhere like History of Central America or History of the Caribbean – that wouldn't just be duplicative or an unnecessary content fork. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        But why does there need to be a specific definition in order to show notability? Why can't we say some sources say X and some say Y and have it be notable? Why is an editing decision coming in the way of notability? SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          It's less about notability and more about the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. If the article really encompasses any number of countries associated with the Caribbean region and/or the Caribbean sea, then the term should disambiguate/redirect to "Caribbean." That covers the territory. We only need a freestanding article if there is evidence that the term "Caribbean Basin" means something specific and different from "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I liked reading this link from the article. It comes from an ecological perspective but the point is that many different organizations, discliplines, or analysts may use several names with different and inconsistent definitions for the region and subregions. You could make a big complex Euler diagram out of them. But just because each of these names is used in depth does not mean there's something more to say that justifies the need for a separate article. So sure, maybe Caribbean Basin is notable and I am making an editing decision – there's just not enough to say that this is needed as another article (WP:NOPAGE). Perhaps a page similar to Terminology of the British Isles could break out the differences when sources say X or Y. Reywas92Talk 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Such a terminology article only seems warranted when a simple disambiguation page is not enough to point readers to what they are looking for. I think a DP is the proper place to start. NLeeuw (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I still don't really agree - there's lots of scholarly and international sources which use the term "Caribbean Basin" and the book Politics and Development in the Caribbean Basin: Central America and the Caribbean in the New World Order (Grugel, 2015) discusses how the term was used by the United States government in the 1980s to give a specific geographic definition to an area where "Caribbean" is not necessarily a specific geographic identifier. That book also notes El Salvador is included in spite not touching the Caribbean, as confirmed by this paper. There's something geographically notable here - it's not just a superfluous term. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted above in my earlier comment, it is outside the remit of Wikipedia editors to try to define terms which are not already defined or covered by reliable secondary sources. Our notability guideline is very clear as to what deserves a stand-alone article and what doesn't. In my view, as the one who expanded the article and added other reliable sources, I believe this article meets WP:GNG. Our policy on WP:WEIGHT makes it absolutely clear as to how to give weight to sources with differing views. The issue of weight is not a ground for deletion as noted above. The content fork argument does not apply here, because the scope is different from the other articles mentioned by other editors. This article focuses more on a particular geographical region/basin which in part, but not exclusively is motivated by economic/trade, instituted by US law. I contend that, moving this article to another would end up causing more harm to that article and confuses the reader. Sending a fully sourced notable article to a disambiguation page not only defeats the purpose of our disambiguation process, but also cheats the general reader looking for this article. Of course the article can be expanded even further and much better, but that is not a ground for deletion, neither is variation in definition which can be resolved by adopting out weight policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think your additions have made the term "Caribbean Basin" as such any more worthy of a stand-alone article separate from Caribbean and Caribbean Sea.
      • You've not changed the definition in the opening line either, so let's do a close-reading comparison:
        "Caribbean Basin" according to Caribbean Basin: the Caribbean Sea and any territories in or touching the Caribbean Sea.
        "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean: a subregion of the Americas that includes the Caribbean Sea and its islands, some of which are surrounded by the Caribbean Sea and some of which border both the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean; the nearby coastal areas on the mainland are sometimes also included in the region.
        "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean Sea: The entire Caribbean Sea area, the West Indies' numerous islands, and adjacent coasts are collectively known as the Caribbean.
        I still don't see a difference.
      • The "Geographic area" section you added is wholly WP:UNSOURCED.
      • The sentence about the Caribbean Basin Initiative indicates that the 1983 U.S. govt law excluded Cuba and Nicaragua from the definition, so the 1983 U.S. govt law cannot be used to support the definition or the "Caribbean Basin region" altname. It is also at odds with your WP:UNSOURCED "Geographical area" section, which explicitly includes Cuba.
      • The Mount/Randall source is invoked to say the Caribbean became "an American lake". But if "the Caribbean" is something else than "the Caribbean Basin", this whole sentence is irrelevant and out of place in this article, or very sloppily added.
      • The Pastor source is similarly invoked to say the USA never saw itself as a Caribbean nation, and ...all the nations in and around the Caribbean Sea seemed to have..., which is irrelevant as well if those words mean something else than "Caribbean Basin". If they do mean the same, then you have just proven our case that "Caribbean Basin" does not merit a stand-alone article, but is just a synonym of "Caribbean", namely: the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the continental coasts of the Caribbean Sea.
        I rest my case. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It's clearly not a synonym - it's a specific geostrategic definition. I've added additional sources to the article and cleaned up the lede to note that El Salvador is generally included, which completely negates your argument, and I have not yet included the footnote from this article which clearly defines why this term is of practical importance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          It's a specific geostrategic definition for a particular source. Quote from page v, note 1 of the Rand paper you linked: "Throughout this study the term 'Caribbean Basin' will be defined as the geographic area of the Caribbean Sea, including all the rim islands, all littoral states (from Mexico to Venezuela), and three countries not geographically contiguous to the Caribbean: El Salvador in Central America, and Guyana and Suriname on the Atlantic (see map facing p.1). Thus used, 'Caribbean Basin' denotes a specific geostrategic region that has special importance for the United States. This differs from the reference used in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has an economic focus on the smaller, less-developed countries of the region, thereby excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela." That source is highlighting the fact that there is no single definition of "Caribbean Basin" and choosing one for its own research purposes. This gets to the point that @Nederlandse Leeuw and @Reywas92 and I have been making: this is a widely used term that means different things in different contexts but that generally aligns with the regional definition of "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Well said, Dclemens1971. I think that attempts to find more sources on "Caribbean Basin", although certainly done in good faith, have so far amounted to little more than WP:REFBOMB of the "lacking significant coverage" i.e. brief namechecking type (no. #1), "verify random facts" type (no. #2), and "name-drop" type (no. #4). There is no good case for a stand-alone article (nor for outright deletion, but I have given up that proposal already), but there is a good case for a disambiguation page now. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Caribbean zone

This reads somewhat similar to Wiki: Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.
    This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.
    This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.
    I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wiki English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [12] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean South America

WP:UNSOURCED since creation in 2004. Not mentioned in any Google Books source, so likely fails WP:GNG. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and South America. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing more than an unsourced defintion. The prod removal is utterly absurd, if you think this is "not an uncotroversial deletion", you need to explain what makes it controversial. Reywas92Talk 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just needs to be sourced. I found hits in Google Books, but not on the first page, and "Caribe sudamericano" brought up other hits as well. There are potentially usable sources on the Spanish and Portuguese language pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Which Books results are you seeing? Beyond the first page of the Caribbean—South America plate boundary, the hits are tables where they are adjacent labels. Looking at the iw links and searches in Spanish, it still just seems there's nothing much more to say beyond that Colombia and Venezula border the Caribbean and this may be a convenient way to group them. Merge that definition to Outline_of_South_America#Regions_of_South_America or something. Reywas92Talk 04:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Lowlands

WP:UNSOURCED since creation, WP:OR. Same as Southern Caribbean and Caribbean South America. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latin America and Caribbean. NLeeuw (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot sources in Google Scholar that use the term, mainly in giving the location of animals or plants being studied as a region of specific countries, but I couldn't find anything that actually defines it beyond a general term for the lower-elevation area between the mountains and the Caribbean Sea, nothing that describes it as a whole. Most use a descriptive lowercase "lowlands" rather than as a specific name. Nor are there other articles on here that list it as a Central American region or even something that would be a good merge target. Therefore without usable sources or substantive content to include here, delete. Reywas92Talk 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's lots of sources that use the term in scholarly articles and physical geography books, mostly in the Costa Rican sense, such as [13] [14]. Needs expansion, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seward, Oklahoma

As the subject of the article is an unincorporated community with a population of just 26 with no notable details listed about it beyond it being named after William H. Seward, it does not appear to be sufficiently notable to have an article of its own. CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    keep Seward is a community officially recognized by the U.S. Census and a well-recognized geographic location among central Oklahomans. There are also numerous locations with smaller populations that are still considered notable, so that is not a valid criterion for deletion. 162.129.251.104 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CDP are not designated by the Census Bureau, but by local authorities. So they are technically not officially recognized by that organization, the locals define them and the census gives the the statistics for them. James.folsom (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Caribbean

Almost completely WP:UNSOURCED since creation, WP:OR. The only two sources do not contain the phrase "Southern Caribbean". On the Internet, it seems to be mainly used by cruise ship industry promotions. No WP:RS properly or consistently define the phrase, and apart from "South Caribbean" being a term in plate tectonics, nobody seems to be regarding this as a distinct region with its own separate identity/history/culture/music etc. other than the sum of its parts. Similar situation with Caribbean South America, just a lot more unsourced text. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ungh, of these unsourced articles that's too wordy to be hokum, but without sourcing, we can't prove anything. The phrase is used [17], [18], but I don't see it being anything other than a geographical descriptor. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's easy to pick a region and then subdivide it into subregions by compass direction, but that doesn't mean that subregion is a distinct or notable entity about which you can say things as a whole. Everything in every section can be either also be applied to countries elsewhere in the Caribbean (they drink rum!) or is just a jumble of facts about specific countries that don't apply to the subregion overall. I'm not even sure how Saint Lucia was picked to be in this but not Martinique, because everything here is made-up. Reywas92Talk 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, critical lack of any good sources. Noorullah (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Msumarini

This is basically a procedural/WP:TNT nomination. This was plainly mass-created from GNS or one of its mirrors, and it has the same kinds of issues that GNIS has (see WP:GNIS for info on the latter}. We said we weren't going to do this any more, and yet here we are. For the "save all the dots" crew, the situation is complicated by the fact that the coordinates are not precise enough to compare this with maps, and searching reveals that there is a second Msumarini which apparently has been for whatever reason the subject of several international aid efforts— I say "apparently" because it's not absolutely clear which of the two places they are talking about. So potentially this would be a disambiguation, or about the other place, but at present I cannot verify whether not this is a real place or not. Kenyan info is probably better than some other places, but for example in Somalia with better location data we deleted a lot of places because there was no good evidence for their existence. And in the end it makes sense to delete the lot of these and have them created from better, reliable sources when someone comes across them. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: Thought I'd blitzed all of these but evidently not... MIDI (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. This is clearly a notable place, but it looks like there are up to three different villages called Msumarini and two in Kilifi county alone - one in Mtepeni ward and one in Adu ward, and then one in Hindi ward, Lamu. The vast majority are for the Mtepeni ward, though I have seen at least a couple for Adu ward (they say it is in a particular constituency.) These articles do not make a distinction between the two places and these places are both occasionally spelled Musumarini. So, yes, there should be an article here, but it should probably be a disambiguation - but there are plenty of reliable sources out there for at least the Mtepeni ward Msumarini, even though I can't confirm it necessarily passes WP:GEOLAND. Any further help would be appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth, Indiana

The cited history consistently refers to the place as a "flag stop", and nothing on the topos or aerials serves to rebut this; indeed, the topos indicate this was likely the name of the junction of the two rail lines. I'm not sure why the history and Forte's PO site disagree about the date the post office closed, but it's clear that thee was never a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: A post office is a central part of a community. Just from cursory googling, it seems like the town at the very least DID exist, but eventually was consumed by Logansport. Currently, there is a quarry named the Old Kenneth Stone Quarry about a mile from the GPS coordinates given in the article, as well as a small town or neighborhood clearly visible from aerial photography. The town certainly exists, though perhaps we should try to dig up more sources for it. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not seeing this "small town or neighborhood". Could you give coordinates? Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only reference 5 gives anything approaching real information (apart from name and coordinates), and it inconsistently describes Kenneth either as a rail junction or a quarry. Either way, that's not enough to establish notability as per WP:GEOLAND. And a post office in the 19th century was not necessarily a central part of a community, as post offices could be just any sheltered place willing to accept and store mail (rural stores, farms, hotels, stagecoach inns, train stations, etc.). If more information is found we can reconsider, but there isn't much to go by. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birwahi

Very small village (popn around 1000) with nothing notable online as far as I can see. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's reason is invalid. All populated places are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree population size isn't a valid reason but there doesn't appear to be census data for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this showing the population, but got a bit lost as to what this actually is. SportingFlyer T·C 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That site looks like it's published by the Panna district authorities, but I could find no explicit statement of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tash Garrison

Cannot find any sources besides the one 2003 report. Given it seems to lack official government recognition, WP:GNG applies over WP:NPLACE and I can find basically nothing about this place. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Figa

I could find references to this place as a villa estate, not clear if fit meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. I did not find evidence of notable archaeology. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Washington

At a glance, this looks like a well-written and -sourced article, but it's a total WP:COATRACK. Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass, Northern Pacific Railroad, or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [19] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [20] People ski at Meany SKi hut [21]James.folsom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In further reading of the papers I did see a passing mention about steam locomotives needing to stop for water after a long climb up a grade. James.folsom (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your assumption that some workers lived is factually incorrect, as my second source makes it clear there were no overnight facilities at the site. Several, other sources I read make it clear it is miles from the nearest and very remote. James.folsom (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, nothing showing this meets GNG or NGEO.  // Timothy :: talk  17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Martin Ski Dome. This page does not meet GEOLAND and would be a delete for me, but it is just about a plausible search term for the proposed target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms

Wiki is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      > just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago
      That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [22] [23] [24], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      … I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Final relist.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags:

wikiproject Deletion Sorting/Geography Geographywikiproject Deletion Sorting/Geography Geography-related proposed deletionswikiproject Deletion Sorting/GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sortingWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat

🔥 Trending searches on Wiki English:

WrestleMania XLDune (novel)Jennette McCurdyAnthony KiedisAaron Taylor-JohnsonSwitzerlandMasters of the AirAditi Rao HydariDan SchneiderLeBron JamesFlipkartSaudi ArabiaRohan MarleyStephen CurryHouse of the DragonPakistanShyneWikipediaBad Boy RecordsCurb Your EnthusiasmSeptember 11 attacksXXX (film series)Patapsco RiverFreddie BartholomewAlex SharpR. KellyThe Accountant (2016 film)Chennai Super KingsSolar eclipse of April 8, 2024Sylvester Stallone2024Kim PorterDanielle CollinsWashington, D.C.Jeffrey DahmerHalo (TV series)Mel GibsonRichard NixonSoviet UnionVladimir PutinCultural RevolutionDune (franchise)Fatal insomniaXXXXSuge KnightJoanne McNallyAtomic bombings of Hiroshima and NagasakiAlbert EinsteinMain PageSingaporeChicago Fire (TV series)Pledge of Allegiance to the Mexican FlagTenerife airport disasterSpatulaPriscilla PresleyLucian GraingeIlia MalininThree-BodyBenedict WongAquaman and the Lost KingdomRoman EmpireAbraham OzlerStand by Me (film)Al GoreEgypt3 Body Problem (TV series)Matthew McConaugheyMel BList of James Bond filmsEmma StoneRepublican Party (United States)Tillu SquareCherry blossomMadgaon ExpressNazi GermanyJoseph StalinZendayaShaitaan (2024 film)🡆 More