Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box, Cleveland County, Oklahoma


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Box, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

If so little is known about it, then it is, by definition, unnotable. Edward-Woodrow •  talk  23:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Normally I am all in favor of deleting articles about dots on maps known only by a name and GIS coordinates. But in this case, Ref. 2 seems to be based on an actual researched book, so there may be some information from which to write an article.  This source is probably not available online (I didn't check) but that doesn't subtract from its reliability.  Assuming this source is RS, a keep is in order since there is some information out there.  If not, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ●Keep- according to this it seems pretty notable. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * and this book PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have been a recognised community, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and NGEO. No evidence this was a populated legally recognized place, no sources above, in article or BEFORE show this meets GNG, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  14:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A full book solely on this topic is absolutely direct and in-depth coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. An entire 290-page book on this community clearly demonstrates notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like the book is self-published and a self-published source is generally not held to be a reliable source WP:RS/SPS. The book therefore might not help to establish notability under the WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. There's a copy of the book for sale on eBay. The link is here if anyone wants to peruse its content  (Disclaimer: I am not the seller and am not encouraging anyone to buy it). Also, note that the webpage  is by the same author and is based on excerpts from the book. There's this in the Cleveland County Leader, referring to plots of land in Boxville  and evidence of a place called Box . Could be further references from the same newspaper. If the sources presented can be considered reliable and sufficient verification for GEOLAND as a legally, recognised populated place, I'd go for keep. Rupples (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ●Comment- Wouldn't The fact that the book has an LCCN number and is listed in The Library of Congress database and the Daughters of The American Revolution Database Prove that the book is reliable and notable? PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It may led some weight but the reliable sources rule suggests some editorial oversight is required. Also, it would help if the author had published other work and was say, an acknowledged local history expert. Depends how strictly one applies the guidance. The subject matter doesn't seem to be particularly contentious so can we be allowed to give benefit of the doubt? I'm not sure, and that's the reason why I haven't formally !voted. Rupples (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it is self-published, the fact that 290 pages can be written shows that there had to have been a decent amount of coverage of the place for the book to exist in the first place - the eBay listing of the book has a picture that seems to show an entire section of it is dedicated to a list of newspaper articles about the place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep A historical community and Wikipedia is, amongst other things, a gazetteer. Djflem (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added Djflem (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. The fact that the book is included in the LCCN should lend enough creditability to the book's author to consider them a "Subject-matter expert". Therefore, per WP:SELFPUB, the source can be considered reliabile and as significant coverage for both verifiability and notability purposes.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2023 (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.