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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelock, Texas[edit]

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

Unnotable unincorporated community. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Decline prod (like any other community)"; minor mention in a single regional website and its existence alone are not valid reasons to have an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - google maps view suggests it's a big enough settlement to support an article. Yes, it needs more work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's consider this like other unincorporated communities at AFD: regardless of your claims, it's notable per being a populated community. Aside from that we already have two reliable sources, thus passing the GNG aside from anything else. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no real notability guideline that backs up this claim, and tertiary sources alone cannot prove notability. The two reliable sources are directories/encyclopedias themselves. Wikipedia is not here to mirror the Handbook of Texas. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). Also, article is apparently properly sourced and thus crosses the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 16:42, 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) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Precedent indicates that unincorporated communities are considered notable, and sources can be found for them; for example, this substantial entry for Wheelock in the Handbook of Texas. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said precedent is not a valid keep reason by its own page, and a single entry in the Handbook of Texas, a tertiary source, is not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia does not exist to be nothing but a mirror of other sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit, and according to the Handbook of Texas, Wheelock was one of the best-known towns in Central Texas in the 1840s. It was also considered as the site for the Texas state capital and the University of Texas, and it was once the county seat of Robertson County. All of those facts are pretty strong indicators of Wheelock's notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in a print encyclopedia (which the Handbook of Texas is) is certainly enough for inclusion. --NE2 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Same as with Mumford Texas, above. Had Nyttend not removed the prod, probably every admin here, other than the nominator, would have done so. Our practice is quite clear abou tit, and its a de facto guideline, much stronger & with more consensus than a lot of the things we call formal guidelines, DGG (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A sourced article about a real place with significant coverage in reliable sources is more than notable enough. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Obvious claims of notability, well-sourced. 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable towns are inherently notable and the article passes WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Towns/population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. Sources already in the article indicate verification. According to this book, it was even a county seat.--Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place=gets kept - deleting former county seats now, this is a ridiculous and WP:POINTY nomination and is disruptive. What effort did the nominee undertake before nominating this? Whatever it was, it was insufficient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 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.