Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri

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 The USGS entry show it exists/existed, places are notable. Gnan garra 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri

Not a census designated place. Part of a larger hoax, although the place IS real. See WP:AN/I for more details. Has no significant references other than two that mention it in passing. All relevant other Wikipedia entries have been deleted or are on their way to be deleted, see Wettershaw Manor, The History of Shaw, Konrad VII von Tegerfelden, Shaw Preservation Society etc. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability isn't limited to CDP's and (non) notability does not transfer by association with a hoax. I have been unable to reach the USGS Geonames database today to confirm, but other editors say it is listed. If this is an annexed settlement, it is still notable. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep conditional upon it being a real place. We can check tomorrow morning, once the GNIS is working again; until then, I can't be sure, since it's not listed on Google Maps. Assuming that it's a real place, there's no reason to delete it: communities and localities are notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editor who created the article included a quotation from the book published in 1882 and described at http://lccn.loc.gov/rc01001356 which sounds plausible, but I do not have access to the book itself. The more recent references indicate that the place name is still in use today. All settlements are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?ei=T8TAR9XEHI7AiQHesay1CA&id=_PwBAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22history+of+boone+county%22&q=%22two-mile+prairie%22&pgis=1&hl=en --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell, this is based on the incorrect assumption that Two Mile Prairie Elementary School is named for a town near Columbia called "Two Mile Prairie, Missouri". Under the "all settlements are notable" theory, anything that you can possibly describe as a "settlement" deserves its own article, even if you can't find it on a map. Mandsford (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only Missouri map that I have, other than Google (hardly the most precise map!) is the standard Rand McNally road atlas, which is hardly a good source for small communities. The Atlas and Gazetteer series by DeLorme shows far more communities, and it may well be listed there — except I don't own a Missouri edition. It will likely be on the GNIS website, too, but that's been down for maintenance all day, and should be down for several more hours yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the genealogists haven't heard of it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the descriptor "an area in Boone County, Missouri northeast of Columbia, Missouri" is hardly precise. Even if an area has locally a name it stills needs some form of boundary or designation to make it encyclopedic (the 'all settlements are notable' is a convention not a policy). It seems pointless splitting every community into smaller and smaller articles; we are just splintering information and making it harder for the reader to find. Better to have fewer, somewhat larger pages and set up redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we seek to reject even a common convention? This is a recognised place; see the GNIS references I've just added. Now that there's a specific reference to the place provided, the nominator's rationale is answered. Let's treat this like any other unincorporated community. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.~~Weak keep with no objection to merge.~~ It's a verifiably real (and fairly big) place with ongoing interest over time per GNIS and others. I see book evidence that at least a few people settled near or at the place, ~~but evidence of a settlement seems inconclusive~~. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strengthening keep with better idea of what this place is, a land form that contains an inhabited place (Shaw). If missing "Columbia Township, Missouri" gets created, a merge might make sense. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With GNIS and a verified literary reference, there are no grounds for considering this article a hoax. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GNIS and a single unimportant reference do not establish notability, which is a requirement for inclusion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This would be a stronger nomination if it focused more clearly on the question of notability than on associating the article with others that have been called into question. -- Shunpiker (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should I need to point out something obvious to everyone? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, KeepI want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per above -Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this still seems an illogical approach to article building. There is no page for Columbia Township, a far more significant settlement. Surely the best way is to create a page for that, first, adding this material to it, and breaking this out if sub-pages for that article then seem sensible? This top down approach is our usual article building protocol. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at most townships in Missouri, you'll see that most are new; as with Iowa and Kansas, there's a gradual effort going on to create articles on the townships. There wouldn't be links for the townships on the county navigational template (see the bottom of the page) if there weren't plans to create the township article. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources, seems to be decent enough to meet WP:RS. A page can easily be created for the township. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Changed my vote. See below. A Google search designed to exclude mentions of the elementary school is the following: 'columbia township missouri "two mile prairie" -elementary'. This one still gets 42 hits, the most convincing of which is this PDF file. It shows the Boone County Commissioners in 2005 making reference to 'Wastewater Construction Planning for South Two-Mile Prairie Region'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hallsville, Missouri. That article asserts that Hallsville includes Two-Mile Prairie as an unincorporated settlement. Our current entry for Two-Mile Prairie suffers from not including any population or land area. We don't have enough data to fill up the kind of infobox we have for McBaine, Missouri, which is another unincorporated settlement that forms part of the city of Hallsville. Until we know the population (even if it's 12) I don't see justification for a free-standing article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think an unincorporated community, with what looks like a few residents, is not necessarily notable. The reliable sources only proves it exists, or existed. Is there any source that shows population? If it's just about a ghost town, I'd support deletion per my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, please note that the vast majority of editors disagree; a typical ghost town is generally considered notable, and the specific population (whether or not it has 12+ people) is not really relevant. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real, officially designated locations are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all places are notable (or not non-notable) - this nomination appears to be sincere but grossly misdirected effort - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though it's no big deal if this is kept, the name is funny in that it appears to be quasi-legendary, or poetic. If you read the article to find out where the boundaries of Two-Mile Prairie are, there aren't any. It's a not-fully-defined town. So I agree if it were a real place with any population at all, or unknown population but defined boundaries, it would be OK. If you click through into the coordinates given it looks to be the middle of someone's farm field, and there is an entry in some list of old place names that the government digitized. The USGS entry says it is 'two miles long' (a deduction from the name?) and is located in Hallsville. It also observes Names were collected by students writing theses during the period 1929 to 1945. If someone offers to sell you land in Two-Mile Prairie, don't buy it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's confusing status could be discussed in the article. --Oldak Quill 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any such place has historical value. Eclecticology (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lankiveil and David Gerard said it. Places that exist are notable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (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.