Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmet, North Dakota


 * 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 no consensus.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Emmet, North Dakota

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

As best I can determine, this was a 4th class post office, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - GNIS spam. No evidence of legal recognition required for WP:GEOLAND#1 or WP:SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited per Notability (geographic features) so the fact that someone prominent lived on a farm near there does not show notability. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was written in good faith. Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid keep rationale, it amounts to "I like it" or "good article". FOARP (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to McLean County, North Dakota for much of the "delete" rationale of User:Mangoe and User:FOARP. All I can find on a Google search for this town is that it exists.  No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. I support redirect rather than deletion because the town may be a searchable topic, and redirects are WP:CHEAP.  Frank   Anchor  16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per sources and content brought forth by User:Clarityfiend. (Though I maintain a redirect would be a better option than outright deletion)  Frank   Anchor  03:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As a rule we have not redirected these to the encompassing county. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a rather stupid (not to mention unofficial) rule as this provides a much better option to deletion.  Frank  Anchor  23:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's stupid. What's the point in redirecting a place name to the county if the article on the latter isn't going to say anything about the former? Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "The latter most certainly does say something of the former. The McLean County page lists Emmet under unincorporated communities.  I respectfully ask you to strike your false claim, so as to not incorrectly influence further votes.  Frank   Anchor  16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Are people really search Emmet, North Dakota? Are they doing so looking for the county? Will they even understand why they have arrived at that page from a search for that place? The redirect makes no sense. FOARP (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very reasonable to think users may search for Emmet, ND. And having a redirect to the county is better than nothing at all.  Frank  Anchor  16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, since the point of this AfD is that Emmet is not an unincorporated community, the appropriate response would be to remove Emmet from such a list. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought Wikipedia also serves as a gazatter. That is the reason I stated the article was written in good faith. Thank You-RFD (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My view on it is that Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. At most it incorporates aspects of gazetteers, but is not a gazetteer per se. FOARP (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your factually inaccurate essay, that tries to belittle what everyone else accepts represents the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as is stated in its opening sentence, has zero standing in this discussion. SpinningSpark 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article mentions that James Kerzman lived "near Emmet", which is corroborated by a few newspaper results. That's about all we've got. This doesn't even tell us what Emmet was; was it a named crossroad? The place where Kerzman picked up his mail? A town? We don't know. I would also dismiss the assertion that Google results demonstrate Emmet actually existed. The first few dozen hits are sites like Newsbreak which use government geographic data to autogenerate location information; these are notorious for repeating database errors. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, this Senate hearing on agricultural payments lists 23 named individuals from Emmet receiving payments under the scheme. Therefore there is, or was, a populated place at this location.  Since it is recognised by the government for the purpose of making payments, that, imo, makes it a legally recognised place under GEOLAND and hence presumed notable. SpinningSpark 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, this book gives some details of its founding and says it was originally called Robinson and has some details on its renaming. From the location given (12 miles west of Garrision), it is clearly not the current Robinson, North Dakota which is 100 miles from Garrison in the opposite direction. SpinningSpark 19:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that either of these references say enough to get us all the way to a distinct settlement. Let me take the senate document first: we can see aerials from before the 1966 date of this document, and there's nothing at Emmet's location besides a single farm. This is unsurprising: farms in this area started big, so fifty recipients of farming aid would have to be spread out of a large area. Calling a "community" is an act of interpretation now as it was when it was when it used to signify "populated place". The book passage suffers from the same sort of omission, as it ratifies the post office, but doesn't go beyond that. The renaming is particularly characteristic of a 4th class post office, as it often occurred at change of postmaster. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Further input would be helpful, as there are policy-based arguments on both sides Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep . This 1966 Associated Press article about James Kerzman's 19(!) orphaned children was posted from Emmet, N.D., and this 1978 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article gives the home town of the third place competitor in the calf roping world championships as Emmet, so apparently it was a legit populated place. There was a 1962 construction contract awarded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to expand the White Shield School there to add another 150 classroom seats, Associate Judge Vanoe R. Gillette appointed "Appelate Court - Emmet, North Dakota" by the governing body of the three affiliated tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, and a bunch of classified ads offering various things for sale by sellers giving their address as Emmet. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also an entry for the librarian of the White Shield Indian School in Emmet in the Department of the Interior's 1971 Proceedings of the Departmental Workshop. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that the White Shield School isn't in Emmet and as far as I can tell never was. Not terribly surprisingly, it's in White Shield, which is almost nine miles west of Emmet. This is why I don't give a lot of weight to people being "from" some place; for my own part, I would when I was a kid say I was "from" Laurel, MD, even though I never lived in the city a day of my life. These references at best establish a fairly vague locale. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's beside the point, which is that the place is recognized in official publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this provides a keep rationale. Mentioned =/= recognised. The 19 orphans lived near Emmet, not in it, and nothing is said in the article about Emmet. Ditto the calf-roping champion. White Shield school is at White Shield, there is no legal recognition indicated in the brief mention of White shield school being near there (same with this). The document about the appellate court is merely describing where Vanoe R. Gillette lived, it is not conferring legal recognition on the location. All of this merely points to Emmet being a location on the map, nothing more. I don't even need to say that classified adverts don't amount to anything. FOARP (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed the same thing: White Shield, North Dakota is the biggest community for many miles, but it was at one time considered part of Emmet (9 miles away) and the White Shield school currently has a Roseglen, North Dakota mailing address. Roseglen is 5 miles away and consists of a post office along with two or three other buildings.
 * The most logical explanation is that these are postal districts that cover large rural areas, which means that people and places that use the mailing address are described as "near" or "from" there even though there's no distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now leaning toward delete. While I strongly suspect it is or was a community, the sourcing isn't strong enough to say anything really definitive. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Yes, it was a post office, and a homestead. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Post offices are not automatically notable, neither are homesteads. A post office can be literally anywhere, and in this instance appears to have been in a homestead/farm. Notably they used a code to identify where the post office actually was, rather than saying that it was in specific community.FOARP (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it was the name of a post office, we have a whole bunch of people who preferred to say they were from Emmet rather than a mile marker on a highway. They think they are a community and repeatedly say it in reliable sources.  Communities are made by the people who are in them, not by bureaucratic dictat. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, when you live in an unnamed rural area far from any town and someone asks where you're from, you'd usually give them the name of the post office. And many post offices weren't located in communities; often, they were just someone's house where the mail was dropped off. If you read the sources carefully, nearly all of them describe people who are "from near Emmet", and the others don't make it clear whether it was a community or just a post office. Did the 23 farmers who received government payments actually say that they lived in a town/village/settlement called Emmet, or is that just the post office where the money was sent? Aside from its "founding", we have no sources which discuss a community at this location, and I don't see how we can maintain a factual article about a place that lacks direct in-depth coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The other thing is that the statement that this is a community is just something WP editors made up. This was created slightly better than the usual GNIS-based stub, but some WP writer still looked at "populated place" and turned it into "unincorporated community" as had been done many time over before, without sourcing. And in any case the word is so vague and open-ended that I would personally avoid using it in a reference work: it's the sort of language one uses when one is trying to find something else to say besides "town" or "development" or "wide spot in the road", especially if one is trying to make it sound all warm and mutual. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This community, though small, is still notable enough for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is clearly a populated place, or at least was at one point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just being populated isn't enough. There are lots of such places we would obviously not have articles for. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Another former United States community, a reminder of the declining population of rural America.  Has sourcing.  I think we can close this one, because whether its "no consensus" or "keep", its clear there will not be a consensus to delete.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with this interpretation of the scanty information we have. A lot of these post offices got eliminated over the years simply because the delivery systems improved, or because they were at rail stations no longer useful, and at any rate, there's nothing quantitative on which to base the claim of a decline here. There's no evidence of a concentration of population which has gone away. Mangoe (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note on sources:
 * GNIS is not a reliable source for whether a place was ever populated or not and does not show legal recognition.
 * "Watchmaker Publishing" (actually Watchmaker Publishing and Design) is a self-publishing/vanity publishing imprint. Their editing services are pay-for-play. The two Joseph L. Gavett books are therefore self-published and not reliable.
 * The Abilene Reporter-News story says literally nothing about Emmet - it describes a 1,200 Acre farm (i.e., roughly a couple of square miles) near Emmet.
 * Again, the Kerzman obit says nothing about Emmet, it describes Kerzman as having lived near Emmet.
 * Origins of North Dakota Place Names - You can see the book here. It states that it was printed by the Bismarck Tribune and that the the reprint came "thru the generosity of the heirs of Mary Ann Barnes Williams" (see page 4). There is no clear evidence that this was published by a reputable publisher. The source at page 175 describes Emmet as a "Rural post office" and/or "homestead", which are not notable things absent significant coverage (which it does not give). It also describes the post-office has having moved three times, each time by a distance of a mile or more during the course of its existence, which shows that it could not possibly have been an established community.
 * If this is kept we will be keeping an article without even a single reliable source saying anything about an actual established community at Emmet, ND, much less there being any kind of legally-recognised community there. I urge the closer to take into account the complete lack of any actual reliably-sourced coverage of a community at Emmet, ND being shown by any of the people !voting keep when closing this. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As has been exhaustively shown here, there are no reliable sources demonstrating that there was ever a well-established community, as opposed to a simple post office or some other named reference point, at this locality. Effectively un-WP:V erifiable, and also a failure of GNG. This would probably refute the presumption of notability given by GEOLAND, but that guideline is not met here either. Avilich (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.