Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klocks Crossing, Ohio

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. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klocks Crossing, Ohio

[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)

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person was listed as from Klock's Crossing in 1943. Here it is mentioned as a place where an accident took place. Here some road workers got in trouble working there on the roads in 1939. Might be a whistle stop there also but the first article gives me an idea that we should keep. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can a whistle stop even be notable in the first place? Unless some remarkable event happened there or there's a noteworthy history behind it, I don't think a whistle stop is notable. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 03:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication this is notable. Another flag stop. MB 04:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of legal recognition, as required by WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the clippings mentioned above (which, apart from the first, mostly don't mean much) there are a few sources here. People were from there in 1905, 1925, and 1951. In 1941, someone died who was born there and lived there for most of her life. It may not have been much of a populated place, but it certainly seems to have been one. WP:GEOLAND does not require areas to be legally established municipality: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". jp×g 03:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To pass GNG the coverage must be significant coverage of the place in multiple sources. Not simply bare mentions of people came from there visiting each other, in what were the early-mid 20th century version of Facebook. GEOLAND #1 only gives a presumption of notability where the location is legally recognised, and there's no evidence of that here. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I suppose that, for me, what matters here is that the existence of the place can be demonstrated, and we can at least say a little bit about things that have happened there. Admittedly, the article is not currently replete with historical documentation, but what exists is a start. As for Facebook, well, debates over whether territories should be granted statehood are arguably the 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century equivalents of Wikipedia deletion discussions, but we have articles about that anyway (and United States presidential debates are often quite reminiscent of WP:AN/I threads, but alas). At any rate, I am not entirely dug into my position on this, since the sourcing I was able to come up with was fairly meh -- I could be convinced to change my mind. Could you elaborate a little more on what you've said here? jp×g 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -JPxG- Thanks for responding above. Specifically addressing the sourcing, to pass WP:GNG we need multiple instances of significant coverage. Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (my emphasis). In this case, what actual details about Clocks Crossing can you actually extract from those newspaper articles? None that I can see. They don't tell you anything about Klocks Crossing. They do not address Klocks Crossing directly. They are just trivial mentions of the place in the society pages, which is where people told their neighbours what they had been up to - the kind of thing we use Facebook for now.

Why is this important? It's because without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, you cannot actually write an encyclopaedia article about the subject. And that's what Wikipedia is: an encyclopaedia. It does not suddenly become something else when we are writing about populated places. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are just enough sources to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing located since nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 23 November 2021 (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.