Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egypt, Ohio

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Ohio[edit]

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

No modern evidence to support that this is a still in existence as a community. Needs to be deleted due to lack of evidence. Some refer to this as a "lost city" or "ghost town" and its Post Office was decommissioned in 1905. The community is no longer in existence. http://www.midwestlost.com/locations/ohio/belmont/egyptsearch.html --Mmann1988 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator is making a point in retaliation for this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the nominator is confused with the URL that s/he provides in this nomination: the article is in Auglaize County (upper map), while the midwestlost.com covers a place in Belmont County (lower map). Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep First of all, it does appear to still exist, and even if it didn't, Wikipedia covers lots of things that no longer exist. Would we delete the Roman Empire on that basis as well? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much is left, but it does still exist somewhat; click the coords on the article to go to Google, and you'll see that there's Street View on the north-south road through the community. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced and encyclopedic. Ghost towns should have articles too. Cullen328 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Errr... Ummm... Not that I have anything against ghost towns... But does this town meet WP:GNG? The accessible references are not significant and the town seems to derive notability from the church more than anything else... -- BenTels (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three different print sources (especially the McMurray book) give it substantial coverage. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay. I can't check them, but I'll take your word. -- BenTels (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but three sources is not enough. There is no evidence that this is a community in any sense of the word. We need more evidence besides the location of a church and a google street view.--Mmann1988 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close The article is well-referenced and meets all notability requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nom's assertions seem to have no basis in reality. Shep^Talk 03:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is no valid argument for deletion, there are plenty of reliable sources and notability is not temporary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Places are usually notable and the arguments for deletion are not strong. Can someone close this as Speedy Keep? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.