Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont

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The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn by doncram and no delete votes. Non-admin closure. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Woodstock, Vermont

There is no assertion or evidence of notability or even documentation of the existence of this supposed community as a separate entity. South Woodstock Village Historic District is a wikipedia-notable topic to cover the NRHP-listed historic district of that name in Woodstock, Vermont, but its existence should not be used to piggyback an article about a non-notable community that may or may not include large areas not included within the legal historic district. doncram (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article, given the subsequent development of the article. doncram (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This community does exist; it's listed in the GNIS as an unincorporated community and included in Google Maps (and appears to have several buildings from the aerial photo). Precedent indicates that communities whose existence can be proven are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no source provided in the article, and now there's some generic link to GNIS where one might be able to run a search. I've been told separately, however, that there is evidence of this existing, so I guess i don't really doubt that it exists as a point location in some mapping systems. I do doubt that wikipedia is served by having this. I don't believe that wikipedia needs a separate article on every GNIS place. If it is not deleted, how about redirecting to Woodstock, Vermont which could carry the information that this is a place listed in GNIS. doncram (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in the past, and precedent indicates that unincorporated communities whose existence can be verified are considered notable enough for separate articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "town" of Woodstock is a division of a county, not a municipality. According to it's article in Wikipedia , it "includes the villages of Woodstock, South Woodstock and Taftsville.". According to the Town Web page, "In addition to the Village [of Woodstock], the Town has four hamlets - South Woodstock, West Woodstock, Taftsville and Prosper - each with its own institutions and character. " Villages or hamlets, unincorporated or incorporated, have articles here. This is a distinct place, not a neighborhood. (the name itself is ambiguous, and could be either) DGG (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catalyst31 and DGG. It is a verified and distinct population center which are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see sources now on article. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (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.