Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falter Place, Nebraska

Add links
Source: 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 delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Falter Place, Nebraska

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Falter Place, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of an incorporated unincorporated community here, maps show a few windmills. Appears to be an old ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, my rationale is that this place appears to fail
WP:GNG, and searches of Google Books and newspapers.com did not return any significant coverage. The fact that there are signs of a ranch at the location is meant to be further evidence that there's unlikely to be, or to have ever been, a community here. Editors supporting a "keep" outcome should provide sources to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
My mistake, I meant to say that there's no sign of an unincorporated community (or any community, for that matter) at this location. The GNIS source describes it as a "populated place", a designation used for communities that don't have legal recognition. Per
WP:GNG
, and Falter Place does not appear to have received the necessary coverage. The only coverage I could find was for a different Falter Place several hundred miles away near Plattsmouth.
Aside from the lack of notability, the GNIS classification is likely in error. "Place" typically refers to a ranch or homestead, which should be marked as a "
WP:GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion rationale sates "...maps show a few windmills. Appears to be an old ranch." I'm not sure we should be using someone's interpretation of what they see/don't see on a map as a rationale. Ditch ∝ 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ditch Fisher: I explained further in my reply above, do you feel that it meets GNG? –dlthewave ☎ 00:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Maps are interpretive snapshots of a single moment in time. Just because you don't see any houses or roads or whatever merits your interpretation of what does or does not constitute a community, locale, or place of interest does not carry any weight, as far as I am concerned. Ditch ∝ 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, I think it is disruptive that you are going around AFDing a bunch of articles based on what you see or don't see on a map. Ditch ∝ 21:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want more than a single snapshot in time, have a look at the topo maps since 1949 or any other source and show me a damn community. We work on
WP:BURDEN to prove, not mine. Reywas92Talk 23:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Not a community, not a notable place. Reywas92Talk 01:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree that by the strict measure of Wikipedia's current notability standards for places, this particular place fails in all aspects. Albeit a place that is named, catalogued, and measured on many maps- and recorded as such, officially by the USGS- it just does not produce enough Google search results to be kept. Ditch ∝ 06:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on article improvement and that the original rationale was flawed. Ditch ∝ 07:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above mentioned improvements, including sources, have since been removed by other editors based on the merits of the sources. I do not challenge their assesment. However, I will not now strike my vote as the article is still somewhat improved. (Considering the scarcity of on-line sources regarding this subject, I moved the deemed sub-par sources to a section of the talk page as guidance to future editors.) Ditch ∝ 23:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of their reliability,
WP:MILL sources such as Hometown Locator and Roadside Thoughts do not contribute to notability. They compile/mirror data from various sources with no evidence of fact checking. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course! From the GNIS entry, the citation reads U.S. Geological Survey. Geographic Names Phase I data compilation (1976-1981). 31-Dec-1981. Primarily from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale topographic maps (or 1:25K, Puerto Rico 1:20K) and from U.S. Board on Geographic Names files. In some instances, from 1:62,500 scale or 1:250,000 scale maps. (There's also an "entry date" of 9 March 1979, I'm not sure why these dates differ.)
TopoViewer shows the location on maps dating back to 1967 (1949 basemap):
  • 1949 (1967 ed.) 1:62500 - "Falter Place"
  • 1951 (1951 ed.) 1:62500 - "Falter Place"
  • 1957 (1960 ed.) 1:250000 - "Falter Ranch" (1957 basemap uses the same typeface as other ranches, different typeface from towns such as Purdum and Wood Lake)
  • 1957 (1968 ed.) 1:250000 - "Ranch"
  • 1957 (1978 ed.) 1:250000 - "Ranch"
  • 1959 (1959 ed.) 1:250000 - "Falter Ranch"
  • 1985 (1985 ed.) 1:100000 - (Not shown)
  • 1986 (1986 ed.) 1:24000 - (Not shown)
  • 2011 1:24000 - "Falter Place" (Different typeface from other ranches. These newer maps may be based on GNIS data)
  • 2014 1:24000 - "Falter Place" (This edition shows only towns, not ranches)
  • 2017 1:24000 - (Not shown)
This treatment is fairly consistent with other ranches in the area. I would assume that the name was copied from one of the 1:62500 maps and labelled as a "populated place" at that time, and then copied back to the 2011 edition from the GNIS database; there's no evidence whatsoever of an actual populated place there in 2011 and I'm not sure where else it would have come from. It's common for state-level GNIS directories to list places like this as localities, a trend we've seen with ranches that were confirmed to be mislabeled in the national database. It's understandable that an employee skimming the maps would have difficulty distinguishing between a community and a ranch since the 1:62500 versions don't really make it clear.–dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, dlthewave, fascinating stuff (at least to me). The 1949 map definitely looks like it says "Falter's Place." Census records for 1920 and 1930 show a John Falter living in the low-population Elsmere census district in 1920 and 1930. Falter was born in Illinois in 1865 of German immigrant parents. He is listed as a farmer, and widowed, living by himself. Can't find a death record, but maybe somewhere he's enjoying this discussion he spawned at least 70 years after his death.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only way to tell if this is for real is to call up the nearest gas station in Cherry County (there aren't that many of them) and see if they've ever heard about it. Until then, WP:BEFORE has not been met. Change to "delete" if gas station attendant has never heard about it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: Gas station attendants aside, are there any specific WP:BEFORE steps that you would like to see? I did explain the extent of my search above and would be willing to take additional steps within reason. –dlthewave ☎ 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am serious. If you really want to know something in this area, first call the gas station. There are multiple stations in Thedford along with a hardware store/lumber yard. Second best option is to call the number at the county courthouse and ask who ever answers the phone first. Third best is to call 800-ASK-USPS and ask for the number of the nearest post office (probably the one at 84451 Purdum Rd, Purdum, NE 69157). Then call that. Fourth best is to call the number of the nearest newspaper. For some areas the best way is asking in person because it won't be on the internet. If they ask what it is for, just say you are from Wikipedia. They may or may not take you seriously or sort of giggle a little bit, but whats the blow to your ego compared to the good you are doing? So minor; water off your shoulders.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unreasonable demand, far beyond the requirements of WP:BEFORE or any other commonly-held community expectation. Even if Falter Place is a "real" place name that's used locally, how does this help meet our notability guidelines which are based on published, reliable sources? I've completed a sufficient Before search which didn't turn up anything, and now the he burden of proof is on those making the Keep argument. I have yet to see a single source presented that would actually contribute to GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unreasonable to call for expert advice for a WP article. I've done it before. Some people will respond well to "I'm from Wikipedia" calls, but others may think it means that you are a crank, because unfortunately that is becoming the collective reputation of Wikipedia editors. You lack expertise to decide this question, but you could gain the expertise by asking people who know. In this case it is people who live and work near Falter Place. The
Dunning_Kruger_effect applies here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • John Pack Lambert, It would only break the original research rules if you were to exclude published sources on the basis of someone else's expert opinion. In this case the print source(s) are already understood to exist, but the question is whether to discount them anyway. This is where having background knowledge is helpful for avoiding the
    Dunning_Kruger_effect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You are spending more time on the internet arguing about something you don't know, when you could just spend less time by simply improving your background knowledge.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OR is only bad if it makes it's way into the article. Calling a gas station attendant for a lead is perfectly acceptable for research. I have made a phone call myself, and have fathomed from it that the Falter Place is an old intersection of game-trails. Not adding that info to the article or talk page was a decision I made based on the quality of the source. But it does not make the subject any more or less notable Ditch ∝ 02:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community, not a notable place. --Cornellier (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "I called a gas station/courthouse/lumber yard and asked about it" is
    original research. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Falter_Place,_Nebraska&oldid=960422693"