Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Hollow, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow, Indiana

[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)

Coordinates point to a "Sleepy Hollow Road" with about a dozen homes but there are no sources establishing this is an actual community with notability rather than a generic neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete Keep Community has received significant, non-trivial mentions in books from Indiana University Press [1] and Emmis Books [2] as the place-subject at which a legend in the folklore of the people of Indiana is set, as well as several archival newspaper mentions discovered on newspapers.com. Passes GNG. Revert back to keep based on Magnolia677's comment. Chetsford (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Chetsford, the subject of the article is two hours away from the site at Frankfort, Indiana mentioned in the book, and the second one specifies it's in Clinton County; not that a place mentioned in a short folk tale is notable. Can you quote these newspapers for me to suggest that this "Sleepy Hollow Road" is what they're talking about? Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the catch. Based on this clarification, striking and moving to Delete per OP. Chetsford (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND contrary to nom's ridiculous assertions that it doesn't. Enough is enough, if this continues we may need to take this escalated because these AfDs are clearly not appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNIS lists every little subdivision and neighborhood as "populated places"; this is not a village or town. It's a ridiculous assertion that a database entry alone makes a single street notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GEOFEAT, WP:GEOLAND, WP:NGEO.--PATH SLOPU 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, when estate agents refer to a community by a name [3][4] then we can be sure that it actually is known by that name. Thus, the neighbourhood has a name, not just the road (which is South Sleepy Hollow Road, not Sleepy Hollow Road). SpinningSpark 01:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sleepy Hollow is one of several settlements in Indian nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, which closed as "keep"). Sleepy Hollow is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
- The US Department of the Interior identifies Sleepy Hollow as a populated place.
- The State of Indiana identifies Sleepy Hollow on a list of municipalities.
- Shelby County identifies Sleepy Hollow on its GIS map, and calls it a "neighborhood" on tax records.
- Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Sleepy Hollow. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia serves as a gazeteer-WP:GEOLAND-thank you-RFD (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a citation from Topozone Maps: Sleepy Hollow Topo Map in Shelby County IN-thank you-RFD (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - First of all, none of the primary documents referred to are relevant except to prove existence.

WP:GEOLAND presumes (not guarantees) notability but that does not mean that an article must exist. WP:NGEO explicitly states that the notability of places can be called into question.

Plus, this fails WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:ARTICLE, WP:MISTAKES, WP:STUB

WP:NOTABILITY explicitly states that a subject's having notability does not guarantee it having its own article.

So merely passing GEOLAND does not guarantee an article. I keep seeing people assuming that it's a silver bullet.

Unless there is meaningful content added to the page it should be deleted. And it's had three years. If people search for Sleepy Hollow they can see all this information on the Noble Township page (or on Shelby County). Note, I say 'all' but there are more characters in the references than in the article.

Kill the article. Spruce up the township page. It will make for a better experience for anyone interested in Indiana's geography than having hundreds of stubs for the sake of having stubs will. If someone comes across some actual information that warrants a page, then it can be recreated, no harm done.

p.s. For any who wish to see a longer-winded argument with quotes from P&G, please see the Hubbard AfD. ogenstein (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of that an argument for delete? It might be an argument for merge, but nothing in that is a policy-based reason for removing the existence of the page, and its history, even as a redirect. In fact, it runs directly counter to policy, namely WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. And yes, WP:GEOLAND is a silver bullet, at least as far as PRESERVE is concerned. SpinningSpark 14:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve what? The page is blank. But by all means, merge away. I will support that. I doubt that anyone would complain about that but there shouldn't be a separate article that is empty. This page doesn't qualify as a stub. If people added a few paragraphs of meaningful information to the page, nobody would want to delete it. People are claiming GEOLAND provides notability but Notability expressly states that this doesn't guarantee a page. The argument is that the page must be preserved because of notability but nobody wants to follow what notability means. Stub expressly states that pages can be deleted. And FWIW, GEOLAND doesn't say that an article can't be deleted, just that it has presumed notability. So claiming that Notability or Stub don't support deletion (when they explicitly do) while the number one argument for saving the page doesn't explicitly state preserve no matter what is inconsistent, especially when GEOLAND is a component of Notability. FWIW, until your comment, GEOLAND was the exclusive argument.

You reference ATD but that states that 'If editing can improve the page…'. The page is three years old. Nobody blocked editing for those three years. I would welcome it. But realistically, it's not going to happen any time soon and the page is barren. So merge the page into the township and if sufficient information does appear then recreate the page.

To go back to your use of ATD and Preserve: What is proposed in those policies? That appropriate facts and ideas should be preserved, not that the article must be. Various 'editing' approaches are proposed but we don't have anything to edit so none are relevant. It does offer a solution though, which is partly as you suggest: "Merge or move to a more relevant existing article…" The coordinates are already on the Olive Township page so a delete wouldn't be harmful but a merge would work as well.

Also, I do wish that someone would explain how having all these empty husks makes for a better encyclopedia? I've yet to see a single comment on that subject but this is really the point of it all. ogenstein (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are too far apart. I used WP:PRESERVE precisely in the sense of preserving the information, not preserving the page. If all the information is to be placed in the Noble Township article (not Olive Township as you stated), then we need to redirect the page, not delete it. And if we do that, there is no need to delete the history. In fact, it is required to keep it for attribution reasons. Also, you are mistaken that the Sleepy Hollow coordinates are in the Noble Township article. Neither are some other details like the elevation, the ZIP code, and the references all of which would be lost in a delete. SpinningSpark 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistakes. I confused the Hubbard page with Sleepy Hollow's. If there is no standalone page for Sleepy Hollow/Hubbard, and any references (e.g. search, typed URL, links, etc…) go nowhere except the respective township page, then I would support that. I'm not knowledgeable of the intricacies of 'merge' so I don't know all the implications of going that route. ogenstein (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Magnolia677 and others above; it does meet WP:GEOLAND. Britishfinance (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (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.