Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudleytown, Connecticut

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. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudleytown, Connecticut

[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)

Woo-ridden ghost caca. Is this an encyclopedia, or a branch of the Weekly World News? Qwirkle (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This former settlement is eligible to be listed on the basis of "once notable, always notable". There appear to be multiple reliable sources. AfD is not for cleanup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Also, the book publisher St. Martin's Press is well known and reputable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and trout. Nomination lacks valid rationale. Extensively covered, notable by any measure, article is well-sourced and mostly well-written. CJK09 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great article, but the New York Times article clearly saves it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points on that. What part of the NYT is this coming from? i.e., is this from the Times proper, or one of the regional section? More importantly, though, I think the poor state of the article over...more than a decade, by the look of it...is a strong hint that blowing it up is called for. Qwirkle (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says section C. Other article appear in the Hartford Courant and places like Wilmington, Delaware which all lend evidence to it passing WP:GEOLAND (see: [1]). I'd strongly support cleaup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we seriously discussing this just because it's supposedly haunted? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are discussing it because the only parts of its story that aren’t completely part of other subjects are the sort of thing best sourced to the Weekly World News. That is seldom a good sign. Qwirkle (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search turned up a NY Times article, at least three [2] [3] [4] articles from the Hartford Courant, and a video produced by the Smithsonian. Unless you're trying to say that Wikipedia shouldn't be covering paranormal topics at all, even when notable (which is an absurd suggestion), I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. CJK09 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m saying that the article is blow-it-up bad, and the subject deserves a sentence of three in other existing articles. Qwirkle (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is rarely useful; as far as I'm concerned, it should only be used when an article is so jumbled and incomprehensibly written that it's a pure waste of time to try and untangle its meaning. Adding onto that, the article clearly passes Wikipedia's notability standards, as I just demonstrated. Therefore it deserves its own article, and should not be deleted. CJK09 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:NOPAGE. Qwirkle (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a section of a guideline with no explanation isn't useful. Which of those criteria make this article problematic, and if it doesn't deserve its own article where should it be mentioned instead? CJK09 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, since it passes WP:GEOLAND, a page is welcome and expected. This is a content issue and I agree with you it's a content issue, but it's not a deletion issue. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if it wasn't a settlement, which it was, places can be notable for alleged haunted history. Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to go all TenPoundHammer on it, but any article so neglected and mis-sourced that it could use the Weekly World News as a citation of fact is, was, and forever shall be a piece of crap. Qwirkle (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I mentioned in my comment above demonstrate that this is not the case. I already committed to rescues of 3 other articles undergoing AfD right now so I don't have time to rewrite this one, but with the high-quality of sourcing available it's just a matter of time. Wikipedia is a work in progress; there is no deadline. CJK09 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. This article did, in fact, use the WWN as a source for nine years and some change, by the look of it. and if you think of that Smithsonian video as “high quality”, well, that speaks volumes. Qwirkle (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not a source, it was listed under "further reading". And the record of the Smithsonian speaks for itself - regardless, even if we cast it aside there are three Hartford Courant articles and a NYTimes article. Are those low quality as well? CJK09 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition to the existence of this article reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even if was only "sensational" notability, it's still notable. Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple RS.Djflem (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and delete Qwirkle unless he spends many hours on improving this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second, orthagonal, similar gesture is for your horse. Qwirkle (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The abuse people get for trying to remove totally unreliable listings of connection, Wikipedia should not send anyone to the WWN ever, that is a sure way to destroy any shred of respectability we have. Also the personal attacks above are totally uncalled for. You cannot delete people, only articles. To suggest otherwise is a horrible and wrong thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on John, say what you will about the Weekly World News, but this National Enquirer article is top notch [5]! Editors can be deleted but I was not being serious. Qwirkle recognized this when he called me a "nightsoil rescuer" in his reply edit comment, and when he complimented my horse. Let's be serious now, the article was in crappy shape, but the subject is notable, so the article will be kept. Let us consume nightsoil together and turn it into sugar!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting topic with enough reliable sources. Station1 (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (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.