Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffins Corner, New Jersey


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Coffins Corner, New Jersey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable place; there are mentions of it online, but none of the sites are reliable sources. In addition, while Wikipedia is a gazetteer, there are no policies or guidelines outlining what we are to do with articles like this one. It has been stated that AfD trends have supported allowing these kinds of articles; AfDs are not policies. In this case, Coffins Corner fails the standard WP:N policy. An article need not exist for every place where there is a house. Legally-recognized places and unincorporated townships mentioned in reliable sources are another matter. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Above and beyond the source from the Geographic Names Information System, and the additional sources available to be added available online and the general consensus that articles for populated places are inherently notable, as well as the fact that these articles have been regularly expanded beyond stubs, I guess we could've waited more than seven minutes to start an AfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did check for any mention of the location. No reliable sources can be found to substantiate the description of Coffins Corner.  General notability guidelines apply to all articles; unfortunately (I'm not being facetious, I think it's problematic) there are no clear-cut, specific notability guidelines exempting these kinds of pages.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NGEO - legally-recognized, populated place. GNIS is a reliable source and as such is enough to verify its existence. Ansh666 04:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am willing to withdraw the nom if necessary so we don't get deadlocked here, and it seems that consensus is "keep". At the same time, I really do not think these kind of articles have much encyclopedic value.  I think it would be great if there were some sort of notability guideline regarding this; I could live with a guideline allowing any and all GNIS-identified places, but would rather have a concrete policy rather than AfD trends.  I've seen similar AfDs on similar articles; I definitely don't want this to cause any issues between contributors, and think that establishing a guideline might be a good idea.  It looks as if a failed attempt to create one was made in the past.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The GNIS is a reliable source, and as the others have mentioned, there's a long-standing consensus at AfD that populated places are always notable, since Wikipedia serves as a gazetteer. While nobody's codified this in a policy, that doesn't mean we have to reopen discussion on something that's been discussed many times at AfD and almost always ends in a keep vote. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:34, 21 August 2013 (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.