Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome, Maryland

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 delete. L Faraone 15:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rome, Maryland[edit]

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

A spurious town that apparently was born out of misunderstanding of sources. There apparently was a man named Francis Pope who was granted a tract in or near the current DC boundaries, but the location is ambiguous and no source identifies it as anything like a town. A more extensive discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Hoax article?. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge into Tiber Creek.The wikipedia article does not claim it to be a "town" so that seems like a strawman argument. But it is certainly a notable part of DC history that I found is easy to get lots of info on outside of wikipedia. So why should it be impossible to get info about on wikipedia? Because someone apparently "doesn't like it", as usual. The description of this estate as a "community" may or may not be too generous, it is technically a "community" by definition, but I would have called it an estate or property. But certainly notable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Update: I am now persuaded this farm is no more notable than expanding the existing brief mention at Tiber Creek, maybe moving it out of the footnote and into the body of the text. It seems verified that the first English owner of this tract was a man named Francis Pope who thought it would be funny to have a farm called Rome on the Tiber, but what is the "fringe conspiracy" theory? That it was really a town or settlement? That this somehow foreshadowed future events or the name of the current Pope? That his ghost is now walking around the US capital and directing traffic? I don't really get what the "fringe conspiracy" accusations are about, because I haven't actually seen anyone making any such claims about this farm. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fringe conspiracy theory is that the Jesuits were somehow behind the founding of the United States (and now secretly run the government from behind the scenes)... the theorists claim that the "fact" that US Capitol Building was placed on land that was once called "Rome" in some way "proves" this theory. It is similar to the theory that you can "prove" that the Freemasons are up to no good by looking for Masonic symbols in the street plan of Washington DC. I find it all rather silly, but then I find most conspiracy theories rather silly. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Community" is certainly too generous a way to refer to a trivial name someone gave their farm. That there was a plot of land that someone chose to call Rome that later became part of DC may merit inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but it still has to be notable as a property in order to merit its own page. I don't see how one cited reference makes it so. Further, that the man who drew a square on a map that included this farm happened to be the brother of a famous person is hardly relevant to the history of this particular farm at all. I just don't see the self-evident notability here that you do. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But it is certainly a notable part of DC history that I found is easy to get lots of info on outside of wikipedia."^{[citation needed]} IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern - While the idea that there might have been a farm/settlement/town/whatever called "Rome" in Maryland during the 1600s certainly seems plausible (given that Maryland was a Catholic colony)... I think we need more than just plausibility to keep an article. I am concerned about the fact that the only sources that seem to verify the historical existence of this farm/settlement/town/whatever are very dubious - they seem to be unreliable anti-Masonic, anti-Catholic diatribes that quote what is claimed to be the original deed. However, as far as I know, the existence of this document is not corroborated by any reliable history of Washington DC. I am concerned that the "deed" is an invention. Without more reliable sources to support the actual existence of the farm/settlement/town/whatever, I would have to say this article should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Tiber Creek cites a source to mention the existence of Mr. Pope's property "Rome", but unfortunately it doesn't link this orphan article. Does that prove to you that this actually existed and is not a made-up fantasy or lie? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Til... that source does help corroborate that there was a historical farmstead called "Rome" in the area that is now Washington, DC ... however... the source opens new concerns.

It seems to disprove most of what is stated in the Rome, Maryland article. Especially the idea that "Rome" was located on Capital Hill (which is one of the primary reasons for saying that the "Rome" farmstead is notable)... Capital Hill is apparently on the tract of land once known as "New Troy" (the "Rome" farmstead was on a neighboring property). In short, I am not convinced that the farm called "Rome" rates an article. Certainly not one that is entitled in a way that makes the reader think it was an actual town. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having gone through the sources I find that they are not especially consistent and that the precise location of Pope's property is on the debatable side. It seems to be just one of several properties which came to comprise the current territory of the district, or maybe not. The fishing expeditions in the archives are instructive if only because they appear to be necessary. In any case it's not clear why one particular tract of land, once the misrepresentation of it as a predecessor town to Washington be corrected, is notable here. Mangoe (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did stumble across one more source, that's not a fringe source but a serious history of Washington, that claims Capitol Hill itself once used to be known as "Room", and then "Rome". I don't know if anyone here noticed, but I added it to the article talkpage, Talk:Rome, Maryland, a couple days ago. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to a page about the history of DC. While there may be a place in Wikipedia for the fact that someone's farm named Rome ended up as part of the capitol, it is too much a stretch of WP:INHERITED to argue that every property that would later form a part of a notable city is itself notable. As it currently stands, the only information specifically about Rome could be written in a single sentence, and thus does not justify a stand-alone page. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of correcting the information in the article (see this diff), so it better matches what is said in Til's reliable source. It's a bit more than one sentence... but not much more. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside characterizations of the other tract and creek: "Rome was the name of a property granted to Francis Pope in 1668 on the western bank of Tiber Creek adjacent to the "New Troy" tract in Prince George's County, Maryland, a part of what would eventually become Washington, District of Columbia." One (albeit long) sentence. It would not be out of place to mention these farms in an article or section on the creation of the District, but we needn't have articles on each farm unless they have received significant coverage of the sort described in the WP:GNG. Just receiving passing notice is not sufficient. If one can't write more than a stub without fluffing it out with material of peripheral relevance, then it can be presumed not to be WP:NOTABLE and is better covered in a more general article. That would appear to be the case here. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. All we can say about the farm can be sumarized in a sentence or two, and that material is of trivial significance. Nor does it inherit much significance from the fact that the farm is now part of Washington, DC. Not convinced that it's significant enough to be mentioned in any other article, and it would be far too trivial to mention in any of the articles on Washington, DC. I don't see a viable merge target at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I could see having a brief mention of the farm in the Tiber Creek article... it would fit in the context of explaining "how the creak got its name" (something along the lines of "Originally called 'Goose Creek', it was renamed by settler Francis Pope. Pope owned a farmstead along the banks of the creak which he named "Rome", and he renamed the creak in honor of the river which flows through that city.") Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge isn't necessary. If it's well sourced, you can just simply add a brief mention to that article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I was suggesting. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GEOLAND seems to be the most relevant guideline here. It states "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Reliable sources that document and verify governmental recognition of a place, such as a national census, are usually adequate to establish notability." However, the place was not a legally recognized as an incorporated or unincorporated entity, but rather as the name of the farm. Furthermore, the farm clearly fails WP:GNG since it seems to receive little more than a trivial mention in the sources. All useful information from this article seems to already exist in the article on Tiber Creek. I also don't think it's terribly redirect-worthy given that it's not actually a town. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has been orphaned for five years. If it were notable, it would have been linked from Tiber Creek in that time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 6 May 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.