Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homochitto, Issaquena County, Mississippi

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. This is very close to "no consensus" as the policy arguments for keeping are not great. Let's see some improvement. BD2412 T 21:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homochitto, Issaquena County, Mississippi[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parks Place, Mississippi, this is a routine plantation, and claims of being a “ghost town” and “settlement” are unsupported. As one of Stephen Duncan’s *fifteen* plantations, page can be redirected/merged there. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Reywas92: Could you please be specific, do you want the article redirected, or merged? Also, how is the claim that this is a "ghost town" and "settlement" not supported? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1] says freedmen continued to work at several of Duncan's plantations, though they have different planters by then. I don't really see anything worth merging to Stephen_Duncan#Antebellum_career so a redirect is fine but edits are welcome there. That and [2] call it a plantation and map [3] labels it just like neighboring plantations Holly Ridge (mentioned in the freedmen contracts) and Clover Hill, differently from actual settlement of Mayersville, Mississippi. Where does "ghost town" come from??? GNIS is not reliable (but sure, this was a "place" that was "populated" just like all those ranches). Its source is "Mississippi River Commission. Flood Control and Navigation Maps of the Mississippi River: Cairo, Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. 19th ed. Vicksburg, Miss., 1951. map 30" which I cannot find online (my physical library has it but can't access that now unfortunately), but the 1939 topo shows nothing. Reywas92^Talk 00:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plantation fails GNG. I removed the "settlement" and "ghost town" claims which failed verification. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In 1860, 7,244 slaves were held in Issaquena County, making up 92.5% of the county's population, the highest concentration anywhere in the United States. Of 115 slave owners, 39 held 77 or more slaves. This shameful historical fact meant that "home" for the residents of Issaquena County was a large plantation which had infrastructure similar to a small community. Sources affirming this was a slave plantation include [4][5]. What part of WP:GEOLAND is not met? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My god, what part of GEOLAND is met? A plantation is not a town! We already know this is a plantation so what the hell are additional sources affirming this fact needed for? These source aren't even remotely significant coverage. There's no automatic notability for plantations. Somehow the mansion + slave quarters of every one of those 115 planters now suddenly needs its own article since a cotton farm is now equivalent to a town? Perhaps Issaquena_County,_Mississippi#Slavery should list these plantations but this shameful fact does not warrant articles for each of the 46,000 that once existed. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stephen Duncan was the largest slaveowner in Mississippi, with over 800 slaves in Issaquena County. So this plantation essentially was a small town. Could use some expansion, but I think this is notable. A redirect to Duncan's article would be preferable to delete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan had thirteen plantations in Issaquena County [6], so can you, maybe, you know, I don't know, kind of weird to ask in an AFD, find significant coverage that refers specifically to the plantation at hand rather than make up nonsense? What are you going to expand the article with, a hand wave? A college dorm, or a campground, or a military barrack, or a prison, or a housing development or subdivision, or yes a plantation can have the population of a small town, but that doesn't make them one. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOPLACE, and even if it doesn't, the sources covering it as a plantation get it past GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources are significant coverage????????????? This is not a town and Geoland does not apply! Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can ask everyone that until you're blue in the face, doesn't make you right. Smartyllama (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I’m not joking, where are the significant sources? I’m asking a legitimate question and you’re laughing me off, so freaking rude, as if ignoring it makes you right. How does this pass GNG? Does every one of the thousands of former plantations count as a town and have automatic notability? I’m not aware of anything in List of plantations in the United States being considered a “town” or “ghost town” and you are making a radical, baseless assertion. Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per geoland; this was a recognized populated place. Sure, almost all the inhabitants were slaves. We've done plenty to wipe out their history, why do we need to wipe this article out?Jacona (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNIS is not “legal recognition” for Geoland1, it is a database of names that have appeared on a map. (unsigned comment by Reywas92)

Note: This discussion has been included at‎ Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) (unsigned comment by Reywas92)

Keep I'm not sure WP:GEOLAND is really the right thing here, but [7] supports a "populated place" finding, and it does receive local coverage such as [8] [9] [10]. This [11] [12] is a modern obituary which shows the plantation was relevant at least into the early 20th century. A Google book search brings up several results as well, though it's clear there are multiple plantations with this name. On the whole, a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 04:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge in to Stephen Duncan. WP:GEOLAND#1 "Populated, legally recognized places". The interpretation of the definition of legally recognized is vague. Can anyone make a case that the location was legally recognized? My position is that being on a map or in the GNIS is not sufficient. My position is that a location must have a local form of government that has elected officials, which this location does not have. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition... given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." SportingFlyer: The references you cite seem fairly trivial to me. These are passing references to the location. The references in the article to the Issaquena Genealogy and History Project are a start, though they are both trivial. To satisfy this requirement, I would like to see a WP:RS source that describes the history of this location. This could be as simple as a newspaper article. Cxbrx (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding a Keep after I added some more references. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on whether to keep or to merge and redirect. Either would seem appropriate with the current content. It seems a little weird to call this a ghost town though. Is there any reliable source that describes it as such? Why not just "former plantation"? And why is it in Category:Populated places in Issaquena County, Mississippi? Are there any current residents? older ≠ wiser 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be called a ghost town, and it's "populated places" not "currently populated places." SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So shouldn't that be Category:Former populated places in Issaquena County, Mississippi? older ≠ wiser 22:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. Didn't realise we made a distinction between the two! SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 8 May 2020 (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.