Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheatland Center, New York

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatland Center, New York[edit]

These ~~six~~five articles are all about hamlets/neighborhoods of one small town in upstate New York: Wheatland, New York (pop. 5,149).

According to the articles themselves, they consist primarily of excerpts from the book History of the Town of Wheatland: Scottsville, Mumford, Garbutt, Belcoda, Beulah, Wheatland Center by Carl F Schmidt (1953, reprinted 2002). One article claims that this book is in the public domain (here) while the others say it is used with permission (here, for example). But either way, just the editor's say-so isn't sufficient.

Additionally, as the articles themselves say:

The search for interesting or relevant information about today's Belcoda has, of this writing, turned up nothing. The search continues.

[A]s of this writing, interesting or relevant information about today's Beulah has proved elusive. The search goes on.

All of the industry that made Garbutt commercially significant has gone. A local excavating contractor may be found on Union Street and a small retail antiques business on the main road, but no other businesses or employers remain. The US Census Bureau does not maintain demographic data for Garbutt.

The US Census Bureau does not maintain demographic data for Mumford.

The area on the west side of Wheatland Center Road and between North and Scottsville-Mumford Roads once held houses and businesses. Today, there is nothing there but scrub land on the eastern side of the former gravel pit. The author of this article recalls, as a youth, farming the large field on the east side of Wheatland Center Road where once stood some of the buildings and businesses described here. Nothing of them remains.

I think that if anything in these articles is found to be salvageable, those bits should be merged into Wheatland, New York. But they mostly appear to be a combination of copyvio and OR. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I unlisted Scottsville, as it's an incorporated village (I don't understand how you can have an incorporated village inside an incorporated town, but that's irrelevant). I've put an {{cleanup-afd}} on it, partly due to the copyright status, and partly because it's not WP format). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable, and all towns are notable. The fact that a book has been written about these places adds to their notability. Wikipedia is not just an encylopedia about things that exist today; articles about vanished communities are just as legitimate as those about communities existing today. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear: this is not listing the town as a whole—that's notable. It's just the no-longer inhabited sections of it that I think could be merged. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books identified as being in the public domain were confirmed as such by the publisher who did the reprints. This company's assertion of PD suffices. "Used with permission" is simply an acknowledgment of the publisher's cooperation. If it was a poor choice of words, then it can be struck without harm. If you can find a valid copyright, then and only then can you make the charge that this content constitutes a copyright violation.

Before incorporating the books' content, I specifically enquired via "helpme" whether this is acceptable and was specifically told that it is.

There is, to my knowledge, no valid reason for claiming that specific articles about these locations cannot exist on their own. They are neither too brief nor devoid of factual, historical, and current information.

In writing the articles I have contributed, I have found numerous boilerplate pages which have the same cookie-cutter statistical information from the same sources, and these appear not to be proposed for deletion.

Your imputation that there may be nothing salvageable in these articles is offensive and unwarranted. If there is a problem with informality, then make a complaint as such. Better to be informal than to be dull and uninformative. --Coosbane (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your assertion of the company's assertion of PD does not suffice; that's WP's rule, not mine.

Is the {{helpme}} response you refer to this one? If so, did you (as requested) send proof to OTRS? If you did, then that just needs to be added to the articles and then we're fine (I believe). However, a 1953 book may be in a gray area, depending on whether or not the copyright was renewed by 1981, and whether or not anyone claimed copyright on the 2002 edition. But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even try to comprehend all those annoying little details. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

It is not my assertion; it is the publisher's. What evidence of this is required and who requires it? It would be useful to new contributors if the procedure for this were to be spelled out clearly. --Coosbane (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to find all or most of the info you need at PERMISSION. Until WP hears from the publisher, all they've got is your assertion about the publisher's assertion—which is why you were asked to send proof to OTRS before putting up the material. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scottsville, no opinion on the others. Scottsville is a village (not a hamlet, there is a difference. That means it is automatically notable. It is a incorporated village. TJ Spyke 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've unlisted Scottsville, so I've indented this !vote. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup; locations are generally notable. The format is horrible; even if something is public domain (which it does appear to be; search [1] for History Wheatland), that doesn't mean we should leave "the original grammatical solecisms...unchanged". --NE2 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These aren't neighborhoods of a town in the normal way, as in New York a town is a (generally rural) area with a little bit of local government, somewhat like a civil township — see Administrative divisions of New York for more information. Communities in areas such as this are considered automatically notable. Moreover, as TJSpyke notes, Scottsville is a complete municipality, legally equal to Hempstead, population 56,000. Without a doubt these are notable, and even if the copyright issue were still a problem (note that "If you can find a valid copyright, then and only then can you make the charge that this content constitutes a copyright violation" is wrong; we assume that it's a copyvio unless otherwise noted), we could cut these down to stubs. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind, though, that at least a couple of these are not communities. As noted above, these are part of an incorporated town (which has its own page, as it should). But if there are no buildings, no inhabitants, and no census bureau data, does it need its own page? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inherently notable. Clean up and move on. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 17 February 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.