Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Line, Pennsylvania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State Line, Pennsylvania

State Line, Pennsylvania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

None of these places seem to be notable, much of the detail in the article is unsourced, and the few sources / external links that are provided do not seem to be reliable sources. Most of the wikilinks to this article are from its inclusion in three Pennsylvania county nav box templates (so every place in those counties now links here). Once those are eliminated, it is linked to from very few articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Aren't most towns inherently notable? Zagalejo 04:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Settlements of any kind are notable. I actually kind of like the idea of combining three places with the same name in the same state into one article, though it might need to be cleaned up a little. Resolute 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and interesting way to disambig different places in same state. Nate 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, generally settlements of any size that pass WP:V are notable. For categorization purposes this should point to three separate articles, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:RS and consequently WP:V. Jakew 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Unverified" does not equal "unverifiable", and there is no such thing as an unverifiable real town. Either it's a hoax, or it's verifiable, and no-one is suggesting it's a hoax. Brandon97 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That's ok. I'm not proposing to delete the towns, just the article. Since Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, I believe that reliable sources need to be cited that support facts about the town other than its existence, and I haven't found any in the article or elsewhere. Hence, in my opinion, the article fails WP:V (among other policies & guidelines). I understand if others disagree, but that is my assessment. Jakew 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Dhartung and split into three separate articles. Per WP:OUTCOMES, any settlement is inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Towns are inherently notable. Brandon97 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the precedent of towns being notable in WP:OUTCOMES. Also, how hilarious is the prospect of spending an hour and a half driving from State Line, Pennsylvania to State Line, Pennsylvania, per Mapquest [1], then on to the third State Line, Pennsylvania. Hope people are careful to give accurate directions when ordering merchandise. Edison 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, real places are notable. Corvus cornix 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at topozone.com and the US Government Geographic Names Information System to see the locations of these various "State Line" settlements. If we're looking at incorporated political entities:
Normally, I'd suggest a merge/redirect to the incorporated political entity, but since this is a link to three different (and ambiguous) place names, I'll vote to keep this article for the sake of disambiguation. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for most of the same reasons listed above, especially the disambiguation. Dincher 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per near-complete consensus that places are notable. I know it's summer here in the Northern Hempisphere, but do I feel WP:SNOW in the air? Alansohn 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is so silly. If there's snow in the air, then it's a flurry of ignorance. Some people seem to be impressed that someone has located three "towns" called State Line, Pennsylvania, while others seem to be in love with the author for putting all three together in one article. Folks, none of these places are towns! State Line, PA, 17263 has a post office in Franklin County, so people do get their mail there. There is apparently a neighborhood near Erie, PA with that name. Bedford County doesn't have a State Line community. If settlements "of any kind" are notable, why don't we have articles about subdivisions, tough neighborhoods, and trailer parks? I'd quote the rule about WP:TRIVIA, but this is too boring to call trivia. Mandsford 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Bedford County doesn't have a State Line community.
  • How do you figure? It's listed as a "populated place" at the GNIS. Zagalejo 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment None of these are incorporated places under Pennsylvania law (they are not cities or boroughs or towns). They are, as noted above, part of townships (which are incorporated municipalities). They are listed in GNIS and you can find them on the PennDOT maps for the counties in question, but other than that there is essentially no other information on them online (saying it is in a place or near a highway is information from the map). The Mapquest links do not currently work, the zip code is for a post office box, not a place (according to usps.gov), the weather link is for Hagerstown, Maryland, the restaurants link is the PA state tourism website and does not list State Line, and the Franklin County statistics are unsourced. Franklin County, Pennsylvania has seven boroughs, fifteen twonships, and four census-designated places. If every hamlet (place) is truly notable, then there are more than 50 others just in Franklin County (by the PennDOT map). If these are all notable (and not just places to be mentioned in the township articles, for example), then we need a lot more stubs made (that will never be more than stubs). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, settlements such as these are notable and worth of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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.