Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson City, Texas

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 snow keep as a populated place with a GNIS reference (see WP:GEOLAND). Non-admin closure. "Pepper" @ 16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson City, Texas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it's true that this community exists, and I have nothing against those that live there, there seems to be no particular reason to consider this little place notable. Reliable source coverage is scant. Wikipedia isn't a mapping website. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOLAND suggest presumptive notability. In this case, sources aren't particularly challenging, and I'll go ahead and add a couple shortly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:GEOLAND confers presumptive notability only if the place is "legally recognized". The article's description of the place as an "unincorporated community" suggests that notability must be determined under the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorporated, but it is to some degree recognized. During the 1986 Texas Sesquicentennial, it was designated a Sesquicentennial City by the Texas Sesquicentennial Commission, a fact which I could cite to the Kerrville Daily Times, but I'm ideally hoping to cite to the publications of the Commission (which are naturally not online...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The US Geological Survey recognizes it as a populated place,[1] it rates a few lines in the Po-Po Family Restaurant entry in the Lone Star Travel Guide to Texas Hill County and it's on an official map or two.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All populated places are considered notable by long-standing precedent at AfD, and I see no reason why this one should be an exception. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated places are considered notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, longstanding tradition that any populated place, and even formerly populated places are notable. Jacona (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it exists. Populated places are notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:08, 26 September 2015 (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.