Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amity (hamlet), New York

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Generally places are assumed as presumably notable even if no notability is actually established. Anyway, a closely related issue is currently on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)#Using an Atlas as a source for notability, so I'm closing keep based on the overwhelming number of keep votes, and encourage you to participate there - Nabla (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amity (hamlet), New York[edit]

Amity (hamlet), New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am listing this here rather than continue to edit war with NE2, who seems to feel that any real place is notable and that it's OK if it remains a stub, rather at odds with my understanding of policy. This was created by a well-meaning new user a few days ago, yet completely fails the (admittedly under consideration) WP:NPT. There is absolutely nothing that would demonstrate this crossroads is notable: it does not have its own ZIP Code or fire district (two things most unincorporated communities in upstate New York that have articles tend to have; there are no schools or significant local roads named after it and it isn't a census-designated place so we can't possibly get a reliable figure on its population. There's nothing that can't be taken care of by a few lines in Warwick, New York and making this a redirect or getting rid of it entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; it's clearly a real community. --NE2 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a real person. Am I notable because of that? No. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep communities generally notable. --Stormbay (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tremendous amount of precedent supports consensus of keeping articles like this one, even if it is a stub. Examples include Upland, Kansas, Detroit, Kansas, Yuma, Kansas, Rice, Kansas... yes, all Kansas but since that's where I live that's what I know. There are 109 articles in the "Unincorporated communities in Kansas" category alone. Further, there is nothing wrong with an article being a "stub" --lots of articles on Wikipedia are stubs! Unincorporated areas and even ghost towns all can be notable and worthy of inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between unincorporated communities in Kansas, a state where the vast majority of land area is so sparsely populated that three houses is something to take note of, and New York, where even upstate a small group of houses in an area not otherwise distinguished by anything that automatically makes a place notable is not exceptional. The mostly rural Town of Warwick already boasts two incorporated villages (Warwick and Greenwood Lake), half of a third (Florida), and a significant unincorporated hamlet (Pine Island). Almost everybody there uses one of those ZIP Codes. I have yet to hear anyone say they lived in Amity or any of the other places not already rating articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to above: WP:OTHERCRAP. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Insulting? First of all, I find it extremly offensive that you refer to unincorporated communities in Kansas as "crap" -- you could easily have used one of the recommended tags like WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:WAX or even referenced the essay WP:OSE to make your point but chose instead to be insulting. Yes, Kansas is more rural. No, it is not crap.
I'm sorry, that was the only shortcut for that section I could remember on short notice. The fact that you chose to be insulted does not make it any less valid, as you seem to tacitly admit. And imprecating that I chose that to insult you because you're from Kansas, or that I chose that shortcut with the intent of insulting you, betrays a serious inability to assume good faith and an exaggerated estimate of your place in the universe.

In short, it's not all about you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. never heard of it? Have you ever heard of anyone from Sibley, Kansas? Probably not because the town doesn't exist anymore. How about Upland, Kansas?? It's a barn, a house, a field, and the former site of the Upland Mutual Insurance Company. There are lots of things that people haven't heard of that are notable. Remember, Notability is not fame nor importance.
Did I say I'd never heard of any of those places? Are you sure you're not refighting some other AfD? I have never said I never heard of it, just that it isn't notable enough for an article of its very own. Please don't put words in my mouth. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Authority? The user above is not a reliable source to quote on the "absence of notability" on a location because "you've never heard of anyone saying that they are from there"
WADR, I live a lot closer to it than you do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Conclusion I don't really think it's fair to use WP:APATHY as a reason to void WP:OTHERSTUFF--especially when there is a clear precedent and consensus supporting the inclusion. --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion: Stick to what we're actually discussing here and assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a verifiable settlement, and editor consensus is that settlements are notable regardless of size. A stub is an okay place to start. I do not share the nominator's assumption that this article has no hope of further development. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Wales, Jimmy (2004-07-28). ""Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Replies"". Slashdot. Retrieved 2006-06-07. Why are so many editors hell-bent on deleting information that does not interest them? We'll waste more bytes talking about this than if we had just kept it.--Appraiser (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sum of all human knowledge, not all human knowledge. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ok if it remains a stub Plenty of fine articles will remain stubs forever because there is very little of note to report on. If you want to merge it to Warwick (and you seem to have a case to do so), then discuss that. Keep. Protonk (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean by redirectifying it, the usual result of a merge. I would, as I have indicated, be happy with making this a redirect. I just don't think it rates a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just go to WP:MERGE and follow the instructions there for proposing a merger. See if anyone responds yea or nay and if no one says anything after a week or so, merge the two articles. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There would be nothing to merge ... everything noteworthy is already there. And if I did, NE2 would restore the article immediately, per his documented history of edit warring. I had twice made the article a redirect, and he reverted it and wasn't interested in discussing it beyond overly generalized oneliners (as he hasn't been in this discussion, either). Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to containing town. I've never understood the practice that simply because a place is found in a gazetteer, it should get an article. This has very little hope of being expanded. It doesn't even get its own census tract. Can anyone justify why it needs to have a stand-alone article? What's wrong with treating the topic in another related article? Non-CDP and non-post office hamlets in New York have always been merged into their towns where there is a section with a blurb on the communities in that town. If someone somehow does expand it in the future to include things other than it exists and where, then that is the time to split it off. --Polaron | Talk 16:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Warwick, New York. I'm in favor of small articles for small communities, but this seems to be a very different case from those in Kansas, for example. According to Administrative divisions of New York#Hamlet, a hamlet in New York is the rural equivalent of a neighborhood. It has no real independent existence and is dependent on the town it's located in for all services. Unless some other sources establishing some sort of independent notability are forthcoming, I don't think it should have its own article. Ntsimp (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response the above mentioned unincorporated places in Kansas also are dependent on another town for services such as fire, police, etc. Now, a "hamlet" may be different from an unincorporated place, but I don't see exactly how at this point...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we shouldn't be using the term "hamlet". In New York it is a term of convenience with almost no legal meaning. One day we will merge Category:Hamlets in New York into Category:Unincorporated communities in New York, as they're basically the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Any documented place is inherently notable, regardless of article size. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment My house is a documented place," included in government online databases of several sorts. Should I create an article about it? I know of no independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of it, anymore than this neighborhood seems to have.Edison (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Your house is a documented structure, not a documented place. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The fact that there is no census tract means nothing. It's entirely possible a local name exists for a "neighbourhood" in upstate New York right? In my mind, and public history is a familiar area, documented inhabitance of the subject area prima facie justifies the article's existance; over time, some amount of history has to develop. Ottre (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was the census tract that includes the area is much larger than the area associated with Amity. In this sense, it is a sub-neighborhood. I don't think anyone is advocating deletion of the article at this point but merging is more appropriate for this case until such a time that more information is found on this topic that would cause the town article to become too long. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read between the lines. If you agree that the article isn't going to be deleted, and that it is a culturally recognised area in a state of ~twenty million, we can expect some history to develop... regardless of whether it is reproduced or incorporated in the Amity article. Ottre (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this "culturally recognized" coming from? I think the point of the nominator is that it is actually not "culturally recognized" and that this group of houses doesn't really have any significant history to speak of. --Polaron | Talk 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Warwick, New York. A neighborhood like this certainly does not have any inherent notability, whereas a small town would. Edison (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Towns" in NY and NJ and some other states can be subdivisions of counties, not necessarily large villages. That's the case i think for Warwick, and this is an independent location--it even has a fire department of its own. This remains an inhabited place within our practices here. DGG (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article closely (like that's so hard with a sub-stub), you'll see that it doesn't. It's part of the Pine Island Fire District; Amity is just a station. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the unlikely event this is kept, we would need to move it to the existing redirect Amity, Orange County, New York, the preferred way to dab communities in New York (not with this silly parenthetical). Generally, we don't use disambiguation pages when there are only two. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - more than satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how. Where's the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? If you're saying it fits the requirements for "stubs on human settlements shown in atlases", note this sentence from the proposal: "A sub-section of a human settlement, such as a district of a town, should normally be incorporated in the article about the settlement it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own, or unless it constitutes a unit of local government." Amity is a district of the town of Warwick. I realize what you linked to is only a proposal, but according to its recommendation we should not have a separate article here. Ntsimp (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When we read the entire sentence, it reads as : "However, stubs on human settlements shown in atlases may be created, provided that some rudimentary information be provided, such as their population or a description of their location in relation to other human settlements." This seems to seems to fit nicely. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except this isn't a settlement; it's a sub-section of a human settlement. Like a neighborhood. Ntsimp (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe you're oversimplifying it. How many neighbourhoods have their own Fire Department? It would seem as thought this settlement predates the area/town/city that may have grown up around it. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just clarifying that this area doesn't have its own fire department as Daniel Case mentioned elsewhere on this page. One of the stations of the Pine Island F.D. is located just north of Amity, though. --Polaron | Talk 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's entirely possible that "this settlement predates the area/town/city that may have grown up around it", or any of a number of interesting historical details that might lend it some independent significance, but without "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", we may never know. Ntsimp (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's wrong with it being a stub? - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's wrong with it being a stub. Everything's wrong with carrying an article unlikely to be expanded beyond stub status. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of articles about various state highways that are unlikely to be expanded beyond stubs as well. Does that mean we should delete those as well, even though there's precedent against it? - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the precedent for groups of unexpandable stub is to merge them into lists. Circeus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, again, is preferable to having individual articles like this. I have said several times I wouldn't mind a redirect or coverage within another article. But I had to do this because NE2 just edit-warred in response to my attempts to make it one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are valid Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Stub articles are an important part of Wikipedia. Most articles get their start as stubs, and many stay as stubs for a very long time--maybe for all time. Once a stub article has been created, other editors will also be able to enhance it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are valid as article starts. A stub is expected to have the potential to evolve into a full-fledged article. A stub that cannot do so is not legitimate and must be dealt with by the usual methods (a.k.a. deletion, redirect, merge, etc.) Circeus (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as article starts? Where'd you find that? Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Yes, an ideal stub article will be expanded, but nowhere that I can find has consensus ever supported that a notable stub should be deleted just because the article is too short. You'll note the nutshell summary states "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub by adding a stub template" -- nowhere does it say "stubs should be deleted"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the original conceptual relations have been somehow erased with the streamlining of the page doesn't eman they don't exist anymore. Look at Wikipedia:Glossary: "An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less)." By definition, if an article cannot be expanded to "give an adequate introduction to a subject", it is not a stub, and if the "adequate introduction" to the subject is two sentences, there is absolutely no point in keeping the article separate. Circeus (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Play Fair Here is the entire definition from the page you reference:
An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less). Stubs are marked with stub templates, a specific type of cleanup template, which add the articles to stub categories sorted by subject matter.
See also Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and Wikiproject Stub Sorting.
Readers will note that nowhere in that definition (nor the referenced articles in context with the discussion here) do the words "delete" or "no point in keeping" occur. The editor has taken a definition in Wikipedia and then added on his/her own argument.
NOTE--not that there is anything wrong with the editor's stance, opinion, etc... heck, maybe it is a good rule and maybe consensus will change to support that idea--but that's not the argument presented. Please stick to the facts and separate out opinion from policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when "that's not written in policy" has been an argument to negate an actual long-established practice? Circeus (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that if you say something is policy when it is not, that negates the credibility of the argument. Remember, one person's "long-established practice" can be brand new to someone else. You quoted policy, it wasn't policy (or even in a printed guideline). Wanna make it a policy? Start working on WP:DeleteStubs and see what consensus comes up with.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this point has been raised twice now, the burden of proof lies with you to show that the hamlet will not develop into a "full-fledged" article. It didn't take me much browsing to find that the town historian's summary: "During the 1800’s, Amity, Edenville and Pine Island became centers of population in the midst of the surrounding dairy, fruit and vegetable farms. Iron mining, charcoal burning and lumbering were occupations of settlers in the mountains from Sterling to Cascade; quarrying provided work near Mount Adam and Mount Eve. Greenwood Lake became well-known to hunters and fishermen and evolved into a popular resort and recreation area."
Matches with the history of the Fourth Regiment of the New York Militia, as it is well-established fact that General Hawthorn drew "roughly one hundred men from round the Pine Island settlement."
Yet the official history states that "After the Revolutionary War, the hamlet of Warwick became one of many hamlets that comprised the new Town of Warwick. It was overshadowed by neighboring hamlets of Bellvale, Florida, New Milford, and Sugar Loaf. All this changed dramatically with the construction of the Warwick Valley Railroad in 1860."
And did you notice that Amity is specifically not mentioned here? Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously biased coverage is reason to believe the hamlet has some cultural recognition beyond the information available on-line. Ottre (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be mainly about Pine Island. Yes, it is possible there is more history available that does not primarily refer to the bigger Pine Island settlement (of which Amity is a neighborhood of sorts). However, until someone writes a more substantive article, what is wrong with putting what is currently known in the Warwick town article? This merging is in fact what is done for the vast majority of non-CDP, non-post office hamlets of New York. --Polaron | Talk 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am going to map out a history (as a quasi-separate community) over the next hour day or so. Ottre (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A New York hamlet is clearly notable and suitable for a separate article, without any need to merge. Time and again we've held that small communities such as this are good enough for articles. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, list articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amity_(hamlet),_New_York&oldid=1069713840"