Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conners Creek, Michigan

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 speedy keep. Closed early per WP:SKCRIT #2b. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conners Creek, Michigan[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)

Non-notable place failing WP:GEO. The only source is a discussion forum! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You mean WP:NGEO? Keeping or deleting isn't decided on what's in the article, but on what's available. It was a recognized township, dsecribed as such in gazetteers[1]. It should be moved to Conner's Creek though, as that is the more common form of the name. Anyway, it (and the convoluted history of its name) has a long entry here, making it clear that it had at one time more than two thousand inhabitants. Fram (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination is incorrect. The one thing listed under sources is not a discussion forum. It is a book that has entries on basically every place in Michigan, with an emphasis on the origin of the name, but it does tell a little about their history. I may have over relided on it as a reliable source that could establish notability, but it is a published book, not a discussion forum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional source found by Fram clearly shows notability. I added information based on that source throughout the article with clear references. It is also interesting to me that the nominator failed to notify me of the deletion disucssion even though I was the article creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin in any way shape, or form? I'm also quite comfortable saying that BEFORE was not provided here at all, given the matter of only a couple minutes since the prior AFD nomination by you. You are being clearly disruptive. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I live on the east side of Detroit, and have driven through this specific area extensively, I know the location where Gratiot Avenue crosses the now underground Conner Creek is about 3 miles from the area the sources seem to be identifying with the later use of this name. It may require digging up more sources, but it seems that the name sort of migrated northward, or it covered an area that was several miles along Gratiot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (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.