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. WP:SNOW J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mumford, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable unincorporated community. Completely unsourced, however text appears to primarily be copy/pasted with minor variations from the Handbook of Texas[1]. Deprodded by User:TheCatalyst31 under the claim that "deprod, unincorporated communities are considered notable" without pointing to an actual official guideline or policy to support this. Wikipedia is not a mirror and simply existing is not a notable criteria in any topical area, including little communities with less than 200 residents. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable as it's a place. It does, however, need substantial work. It'd be better as a stub for now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "clearly notable"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a place which clearly meets WP:GNG as it has reliable, verifiable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires significant coverage in those sources, not just sources showing it exists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this any different from the dozens of other unincorporated communities that have been kept at AFD? Even if longstanding AFD precedent isn't sufficient, consider the state of the article now. As you note, it was a copyvio of the Handbook of Texas, but not now — I've completely rewritten and added six reliable sources, including the Handbook used properly. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zipcode.info is not a reliable source, and, again, its having a zipcode doesn't make it notable. None of the sources discuss the community in significant detail beyond the Handbook of Texas, they simply source that something exists there. Again, where is the significant, third-party coverage of this community which is the only valid notability guideline that actually matters, not people continuing to perpetuate the mistaken idea that because a community exists it is notable (which has never been a valid guideline here). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). Also, this article is now apparently properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Long-standing precedent states that unincorporated communities are considered notable, especially ones with a post office and school district, not to mention six sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "long-standing precedent". The page continually being referred to clearly states that it itself is NOT a valid argument to use in a deletion argument. Only two of the sources actually discuss Mumford, Texas beyond just "yep, this exists there". And those two are tertiary sources, other encyclopedias. Its having a school district is actually a better indicator of notability, than any of the non-arguments thrown out so far, but does it have any actual coverage anywhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is precedent for this. I think it's because they always turn out to be notable if you look hard enough. Probably have to use books. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nom obviously knows our practices with these articles, but disagrees with them. A nom like this is getting close to being disruptive, requiring people to spend time defending what will certainly be accepted, when they could be improving articles. Policy is made in two ways: one is by trying to write down what we do. That we can agree 90% on what to do but still a few people can prevent it being written down is a defect in our procedures. There is a practical guideline here. DGG (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing disruptive about it, so please don't go throwing around bad-faith remarks. It does not reflect well on an admin. Why is it no one seems capable of defending this place as notable other than attacking the nomination, the nominator, or just claiming "because precedence says so", despite said "precedence" noting it is NOT a valid keep reason and being based on a community rejected proposed notability guideline? Consensus can change, and no, 90% do not agree on "what to do" otherwise the proposed guideline would have passed. Obviously enough people do agree that these little communities are NOT notable unless they meet WP:GNG to warrant continued discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And at least a large enough percentage of Editors are in the opposite camp, believing that places, that can be verified to exist, do have a place within the Encyclopedia, using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes as a good indicator of past outcomes. Consensus is unsettled at this time. Although the occasional AFD like this is a good test bed to see if consensus has changed, it should not be overused. Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a sourced article about a verifiably real settlement, meaning that even without the significant coverage this has it would merit inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well-sourced, and as per longstanding concensus, real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edward321 beat me to it -- the article meets WP:RS standards and verifiable towns are inherently notable. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Real place=gets kept. I think that the community has spoken often on this, and even if it isn't codified, trying to thwart community consensus is very disruptive - we should be building the encyclopedia rather than wasting energy on people's ill-conceived attempts to tear it down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Can this now be snowballed? Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 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.