Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollo, Pennsylvania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hollo, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article is almost certainly a hoax. No town/township anywhere close to this size exists in Northampton County, Pennsylvania or anywhere in Pennsylvania for that matter. In particular, searches of the U.S. Census database, USPS website, and the Commerce Department website turn up nothing (all are referenced or mentioned in edit summaries). Google News finds nothing relevant, and google searches just come up with generic commercial sites with no information. Maps.google locates Hollo, but there is no indication of an organized community. Towns of 20,000 people in the U.S. appear on the radar screen; this community does not. Darkspots (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete USGS lists no such place in Northampton County and the source cited for the County's page lists no such such place either.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete vote struck per information from Nyttend. I thought the nominator's withdrawal would be the end of this. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To the contrary, Hollo is listed by the USGS database: see here. I've completely reworked the article, removing all unsourceable information and making it a stub of information that comes from reliable sources. It's a real populated place, and as it now exists the article is substantial and passes notability and verifiability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom withdrawn Thanks for finding this source; I couldn't find anything, so that's a big help. Darkspots (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can a nomination be withdrawn if there's already a "Delete"? Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of typical practice is that the nom can be withdrawn at any time but the delete vote(s) would have to change to keep to close the discussion as "nom withdrawn". Darkspots (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can a nomination be withdrawn if there's already a "Delete"? Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (ec) It appears on this map as the cluster of about 17 buildings SSE of Nazareth. FallingRain thinks there are 28,863 within 7 km. Perhaps the hoaxer is making some sort of comment on the dangers of using GNIS and FallingRain to base an article on. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Making a comment on FallingRain, eh? I'll check with you two the next time I have a question about a geography article. Darkspots (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've observed problems with Fallingrain (since it doesn't discriminate based on jurisdictions), but what's the problem with the GNIS? Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy at GNIS is they never delete an entry, so it is full of ghost towns. I have added a reference about that to the GNIS and GEOnet Names Server articles. I've started a discussion with Blofeld about this problem, if you are interested; there are hundreds of mistaken articles on Wikipedia that relied too heavily on GNS. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've observed problems with Fallingrain (since it doesn't discriminate based on jurisdictions), but what's the problem with the GNIS? Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Making a comment on FallingRain, eh? I'll check with you two the next time I have a question about a geography article. Darkspots (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nyttend. Ottre (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per work done by Nyttend that established this as a real populated place and therefore notable. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (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.