The result was no consensus. The nominator has since been banned. However, even with significant input by other editors there isn't a consensus here especially with issues surrounding the sourcing. If further discussion around a merger is needed, please use the Talk. Star Mississippi 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
GNIS spam-created article about a road called "Hickory Hill Rd". It doesn't meet the legal recognition requirement of WP:GEOLAND, which precludes any argument towards notability. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope that there will not be any desperate wikilawyering gymnastics about keeping "populated place" instead of explaining to the reader that it was a store/post office for 130 years, since CCHS 2004, p. 23 tells us that it is now just a private home. The classic 1-building "populated place" GNIS rubbish. ☺
Uncle G ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The extract of the 1982 source, the 1 source that you really have, copied onto a WWW page says that this was an "area" and, agreeing with what I said above and the history book already cited above, a post office. And we have a contemporary 1854 source contradicting the 1982 tricentennial anniversary coffee-table book, saying that Hickory Hill wasn't a village in 1854, as it calls such things "post-village". The 1854 source has no Nottinghamdale, either. Lippincott's does not go back much earlier, but Darby & Dwight 1836 has zero mention of any Nottinghamdale village in Pennsylvania supposedly from 1825, as well. If 19th century gazetteers that go down to the level of individual villages don't have a Nottinghamdale village in Pennsylvania (which wasn't some sparsely documented territory), that's a strong indicator that there wasn't actually a proper village.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. The nominator has since been banned. However, even with significant input by other editors there isn't a consensus here especially with issues surrounding the sourcing. If further discussion around a merger is needed, please use the Talk. Star Mississippi 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
GNIS spam-created article about a road called "Hickory Hill Rd". It doesn't meet the legal recognition requirement of WP:GEOLAND, which precludes any argument towards notability. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope that there will not be any desperate wikilawyering gymnastics about keeping "populated place" instead of explaining to the reader that it was a store/post office for 130 years, since CCHS 2004, p. 23 tells us that it is now just a private home. The classic 1-building "populated place" GNIS rubbish. ☺
Uncle G ( talk) 16:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The extract of the 1982 source, the 1 source that you really have, copied onto a WWW page says that this was an "area" and, agreeing with what I said above and the history book already cited above, a post office. And we have a contemporary 1854 source contradicting the 1982 tricentennial anniversary coffee-table book, saying that Hickory Hill wasn't a village in 1854, as it calls such things "post-village". The 1854 source has no Nottinghamdale, either. Lippincott's does not go back much earlier, but Darby & Dwight 1836 has zero mention of any Nottinghamdale village in Pennsylvania supposedly from 1825, as well. If 19th century gazetteers that go down to the level of individual villages don't have a Nottinghamdale village in Pennsylvania (which wasn't some sparsely documented territory), that's a strong indicator that there wasn't actually a proper village.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sandstein
09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)