Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleener, Indiana

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. There is sufficient evidence that this community does exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fleener, Indiana[edit]

Fleener, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonexistent locality: the article is based on the GNIS, which here has made an error. Street View will show you that no community exists at these coordinates (39°16′57″N 86°24′45″W / 39.28250°N 86.41250°W / 39.28250; -86.41250) presently, and multiple Monroe County histories state that the only community ever founded in Benton Township is the Unionville/New Unionville area. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rail line has ever gone through the area immediately north of Lake Lemon: the current line, which goes through Unionville (per your Findagrave, formerly Fleenersburgh), is the only one that's ever run through the area. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep—i have to go with keeping this one. if google maps says it exists, and it's mentioned in a number of google hits, it's almost certainly real, and if it's real it should have an article. probably what the histories mean is that unionville is the only community ever incorporated in benton township, but the world is full of unincorporated places with names. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC) p.s.—i'm restoring my keep here because of sources discovered by TheCatalyst31; quite impressive research. Carlossuarez46's comments are quite insightful. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unionville and New Unionville have never been incorporated: the histories specifically say that area was the only community of any sort founded in the township. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok—but nevertheless, there is this too. perhaps a redirect is in order? it just seems to me that 'tis becoming clear that such a place exists or existed. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the comment below: you misunderstood a source. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mention in a fictional work does not prove that it is or was ever an inhabited place. Google maps is not a reliable source, since they do not have an established reputation for fact checking and for correcting errors, their source for place names is unknown and unverifiable, and they do not have a named editorial board. I have sent them documentation of errors and they have neither replied nor corrected the errors. Histories of the county note no such community. Perhaps someone put it in GNIS as a joke, or it was just an error. Edison (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A search for its variant name "Fleenersburgh" gets multiple hits including the Indiana Gazetteer. This place apparently did exist. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And still does: see the Findagrave link given below and please read the entire entry. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the entry thoroughly, you will observe that the name "Fleenersburgh" was later changed to "Unionville". Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you're right that i misunderstood that at first, but i did later come to understand it, which is why, in my reply above, i suggested a redirect (assuming fleener = fleenersburgh = fleenersburg. i'm sorry that i was vague. anyway, at this point i'm not sure, so i'm withdrawing my keep for now. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC) p.s.—note unstruck keep above — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Findagrave" is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. The will cited in the Fiundagrave do4s not verify that the guy who died in Missouri in 1872 earlier founded a town of "Fleener" or "Fleenersburgh" in Indiana. Findagrave lacks editorial supervision and is equivalent to a blog or a site where people post their supposed genealogies. If a reliable source can be produced that part of unincorporated "Unionville" was once called informally "Fleenersburgh" then that could be summarized as one sentence in Unionville, Indiana. A redirect would be suitable. But the claimed renaming is dubious, since the two hamlets are not in the same place, per the coordinates given in the two articles. Fails verifiability. Street view shows nothing in the claimed location of "Fleener" but an overgrown field. No remains of streets or a town. Smacks of a hoax. Edison (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my friend, this country is full of places that are nothing more than a crossroads and a couple of farms and they got names for their places too. sometimes stuff even happens there. look at Money, Mississippi on google maps if you don't believe me. it's just not possible to tell whether or not a place exists by looking at a satellite photo of it. anyway, i'm not so convinced that findagrave is not "considered reliable" as there are plenty of circles here where it is. also, i already withdrew my keep, so i don't know what else you're trying to convince me of. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The street view and aerial view prove that there is no hamlet there now. It is certainly possible to tell if a hamlet exists now when the aerial view shows nothing at all but a plowed field. Absent some sort of reliable source that there was ever a hamlet or town or community there, the article should be deleted. Anyone can claim just about anything anything at Findagrave, and it is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. Some websites and an 1840's gazetteer have hints that Mr Fleener thought of starting a town there in the 1830's or 1840's but no reliable source has been presented that it had streets, buildings, or population. A sentence in the Unionville article is more than sufficient homage to the failed hopes of Mr. Fleener. Edison (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hence my opinion, expressed above fairly clearly, that perhaps a redirect is in order. i'm so glad we agree!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the existence of a Fleener post office after the name Unionville was in use would suggest that Fleener and Unionville are not the same community, meaning a redirect wouldn't make sense. I would !vote to keep the community, except I can't find any other record of it, which is unusual for settlements (Struck per my !vote.). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the reference I mentioned above and the GNIS reference, I also found this 1895 map, which includes Fleener. With three references, it can safely be said that this community both existed and is separate from Unionville. This map would also explain why Fleener isn't in any history of Benton Township, since it's actually in Marion Township. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that Marion Township is no longer a township, though my last point is probably true nonetheless. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Midway, Ohio and many other communities, post offices and their communities don't always have the same names. Moreover, if you check the way that rural areas in the USA developed, you'll observe that post offices were often established in the house of a person who happened to live in the middle of an area with no communities, simply because that person had a vaguely central location. Post office often doesn't indicate community. If you've ever worked with the types of local histories that I mentioned in the intro (comprehensive; based on local information and published by national companies with strong reputations), you'd know that they didn't omit entire communities, so you'd know that the absence of a community name from such a history means that none had been established. You've still not produced any evidence of a populated place with the name of Fleener that existed in this area at any time in recorded history. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it clearly existed (as attested by 3 sources now), and whether the townships have changed or its status has now changed to defunct are immaterial to its being kept. FWIW, I think that all the various comments based on satellite photos and street views are clearly within the ambit of Original Research and comments based upon such shaky ground have little weight. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (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/Fleener,_Indiana&oldid=1070662216"