Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogersville, Indiana

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 snow keep per WP:HEY, WP:GEOLAND, and WP:OUTCOMES. Great job of a rescue by Northamerica1000. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rogersville, Indiana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a town that lacks any significance. Article cites no sources and has absolutely nothing written other than "Rogersville has a population of 7". Aclany (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a strong advocate of "sources precede the article", but let's give this more than 10 minutes to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unincorporated part of a town, not a valid location for US Census measurements. Should this survive someone CSD'ing it, and no other show of notability I will change to a Delete--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no longer an empty article, meets criteria--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It exists as a populated place and likely has some obscure history, probably connected with late 19th/early 20th century railroads. There is a policy that applies to notability for geographic features, but I can never remember the name of it.- Mr X 03:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy, but an essay: WP:NGEO.- Mr X 03:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to qualify under WP:GEOLAND, but the article needs expanded to include more than just a pop of 7. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. May be historically notable (see http://www.hcgs.net/rogerscem.html). VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP; was a real community in the 19th century with its own post office 1849-1901. [1][2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A legally-recognized place: [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As this is a verified populated place, it is considered notable under Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer (and by AfD precedent). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - passes WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP, easily verifiable as being a proper town. Nominating an article for deletion 13 minutes after creation, when it's not pure vandalism, isn't the best form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is creating a one sentence sub-stub - there are plenty of ways of making an article that is more than that - either by previewing or by starting on your userspace. The only reason I wouldn't have wp:PRODded that is wp:BITE. But as the article now stands, it's a clear Snow Keep. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but two wrongs don't make a right, and the user who created the article has far less experience than the nominator, who clearly failed to carry out WP:BEFORE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 19 December 2013 (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.