Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northgate, Texas
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 merge to College Station, Texas. MBisanz talk 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northgate, Texas[edit]
- Northgate, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unnotable local residential district (despite article name which names it like it were a city). Article is almost entirely fluff and local promotional sounding stuff. Has not received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources beyond local news and college news media. It isn't a historical landmark. Has been tagged for notability concerns and lack of references since January with no change. Failed PROD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some information can be found via Google search: there is this: [1] and a few results on Google Books (although I don't know how much there is in each, and whether it's enough for notability). If there is not enough I suggest a merge, with a removal of unverifiable content. —Snigbrook 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the City of College Station website (which is the city it is located in). Its notable for local folks as in "popular spot for students" and there are a few local books who mention it as part of the city's history, but it isn't notable outside of the Bryan-College Station area. Not sure there is much in the current version worth merging to the CS article though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Link is dead, Google turns up practically nothing. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this appears to be a real neighborhood recognized by the city legally, if nothing else, in the form of a 145-acre special tax zone created in 2006, as I just added to the article. There are a lot of sources on Google News Archive and Google Books. The whole 'not notable outside of X' is a red herring, you can always define X such that nothing is notable on a given scale. But it doesn't matter because we are not a paper encyclopedia bound by a space limitation and we include articles based on what sources are available, not on how subjectively important we think a topic is (I live 3,000 miles away, Northgate doesn't matter at all to me except in principle). --Rividian (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N, local only notability is not sufficient for inclusion here, significant coverage is. And yes it exists, drive by it regularly. I know its there, but that doesn't make it notable. It does not have a lot of sources, one is the local paper and one is a trivial mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N doesn't mention the word "local", so your argument seems entirely off base... there is no requirement that sources be published X miles from the place the article is about. But like I said, what is "only notable on a local level" is a totally subjective designation, which is why we look to sources, not what we personally think is notable or not. I cited a newspaper article about the neighborhood, that's not trivial coverage, many other newspaper articles seem to exist. In "further reading" is a book I don't have access to that seems to cover the history of the area that became Northgate. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that book is a history of Texas A&M University, which Northgate is not really a part of (it butts up against it). WP:BIO specifically notes that local only mentions are not indicators of notability. No reason the same should not apply to a neighborhood. Otherwise we might as well have articles on every last neighborhood in the country, or at least the rich ones and student ones, because they all will generally be mentioned in local papers regularly, especially in areas like this with low crime so lots of human interest stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fine to me... as long as the information is from sources one could access (even if, as in the case of this book, it would require an interlibrary loan). We could have referenced articles on all those neighborhoods and it would only be a good thing... it's not like we need to conserve space and limit the number of otherwise encyclopedic articles we can include. By the way, neighborhoods are not people... including an article on some PTA mom because she was the subject of 3 articles in a newspaper is obviously a bad idea due to privacy reasons... but a neighborhood is fundamentally different. The information will be meaningful to more people, and there's no privacy to be concerned with. --Rividian (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that book is a history of Texas A&M University, which Northgate is not really a part of (it butts up against it). WP:BIO specifically notes that local only mentions are not indicators of notability. No reason the same should not apply to a neighborhood. Otherwise we might as well have articles on every last neighborhood in the country, or at least the rich ones and student ones, because they all will generally be mentioned in local papers regularly, especially in areas like this with low crime so lots of human interest stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N doesn't mention the word "local", so your argument seems entirely off base... there is no requirement that sources be published X miles from the place the article is about. But like I said, what is "only notable on a local level" is a totally subjective designation, which is why we look to sources, not what we personally think is notable or not. I cited a newspaper article about the neighborhood, that's not trivial coverage, many other newspaper articles seem to exist. In "further reading" is a book I don't have access to that seems to cover the history of the area that became Northgate. --Rividian (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N, local only notability is not sufficient for inclusion here, significant coverage is. And yes it exists, drive by it regularly. I know its there, but that doesn't make it notable. It does not have a lot of sources, one is the local paper and one is a trivial mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to College Station, Texas. There is no such place as "Northgate, Texas" outside of a website (northgatetx.com) that can't be found anymore. It doesn't appear to have any notability outside of being off-campus for Texas A&M students. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to College Station, Texas - seems to be just a district of that city rather than a separate location with independent notability. Terraxos (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to College Station, Texas. Simple enough. Dr.Who (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as in previous comments. -Yupik (talk) 11:34, 9 January 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.