Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellborn, Texas

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellborn, Texas

Unnotable unincorporated community. A few minor mentions in local sources (which are therefore non-thirdparty) is not enough to meet WP:N, and its lack of status as a city or town does not make it "automatically" notable. Its having a zipcode also does not make it notable, many unincorporated communities and suburbs do. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Like any other community") -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With as many unreferenced, unincorporated community articles are on Wikipedia, I dont understand how this one is being put up for deletion. The sources I used are frequently used for Texas-related articles and aren't minor mentions, they provide a detailed history of the community. While I strongly believe that there is absolutely no reason this article should be deleted, I get tired having well-referenced articles that I have created be put up for deletion when other, less credible, poorly-referenced articles are untouched. --Acntx (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clear Keep because it's a place with enough size... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). - Dravecky (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can something with references to six different pages from four independent reliable sources (as well as the obvious print coverage) be unnotable? How can anything, even if it isn't something considered (by the majority of us) automatically notable? Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References that do not give significant coverage do not establish notability. Anyone can throw in references to show something exists. That does not meet WP:N. And a small group of editors who quickly pounce on every location AfD and flood it with kepes by pointing to a single person's personal essay, a proposed guideline rejected by actual consensus, and an outdated list of "precedents" that itself states is not a valid argument in a deletion argument shows to me that the issue isn't that these items are automatically notable, but that they are being kept purely through sheer numbers and "majority" despite Wikipedia not being a democracy. No one has yet to actually provide a single source beyond the Handbook that actually gives the place significant coverage itself, not just "yep, its there" type sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maps are considered reliable secondary sources. They can have errors, but so can everything else. When it's confirmed in the official state handbook, and when even the nom says that the Handbook gives substantial coverage, it seems quixotic to pursue such a nomination. DGG (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per long-standing precedent, unincorporated communities are considered notable. Besides, the article is well-sourced at any rate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All real settlements with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources are automatically notable per precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My neighborhood is a real place, so that means its notable enough for an article? What about my house? Also a real place. Just saying "real places are notable" pretty much means anything and everything that exists and is a "place" can have an article, which clearly goes against WP:N and WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actual population center which are inherently notable. Towns don't magically become un-notable simply because they're "unincorporated." Sources already in the article indicate passing the letter of WP:N. And what's with this "A few minor mentions in local sources (which are therefore non-thirdparty)"? So the article for New York City Council majority leader Joel Rivera should be deleted because he's covered by only New York City sources, "which are therefore non-thirdparty"? For the record, WP:N does not "ban" local sources as indications of notability and certainly does not label them "non-thirdparty."--Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=gets kept, and what exactly do we have against Texas this week? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2009 (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.