Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. Apparently consensus is that if something happens in a mine or factory of the same name as a nearby town, then notability is absorbed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Kirk, Pennsylvania

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an unincorporated spot, that doesn't show any notability. It's not a Census-designated place or a seat for a township. The sole source here is that the US Geological survey saying that it exists. Google didn't turn up much either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Apparently a mining ghost town or a locale significant for identifying purposes of specific mines per Coal Miners Memorial: Hazel Kirk Mine No. 1, Hazel Kirk Mine No. 2, Hazel Kirk Mine No. 3 (Website of the Virtual Museum of Coal Mining in Western Pensylvania). That alone seems to provide sufficient justification for inclusion, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Same source, different page, indicates that Hazel Kirk is an unincorporated area that is part of Carroll Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This Flicker photo caption of a 1948 photo doesn't count towards GNG (not that this is all that important in terms of notability of places of confirmed exitence) but does lend support to the idea that this was a mining ghost town, calling it a "village." THIS from the same set of photos repeats the claim and gives a look at the unincorporated community as it appeared in 1948. That seems amply sufficient for verifiability of a place. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ANOTHER WEB SITE (Coal Camp USA) offers a color photo of surviving homes from what would seem to be the company town period of Hazel Kirk and notes that Hazel Kirk No. 2 was the site of a mining disaster. You will note that the caption also refers to "Hazel Kirk, PA" as a place. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies it exists. So proving it exists isn't really helpful. Neither is showing where it is. What is being questioned is the notability. It is not a CDP. It doesn't have a zip code that I can find. Simply existing doesn't make something notable. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to Carroll Township. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is a place that exists, we are done here. I've added sourced content on the 1905 Hazel Kirk mine disaster which should be more than sufficient reason to demonstrate why company town pages are worth keeping, even if the United States Postal Service doesn't give them a zip code in 2013. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it exists we are done? Wrong. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ENN disagree. Second, your claim about the accident is a red herring. The name of the mine was Hazel Kirk No. 2. The article refers to it as a mine, not a town. It goes so far as to say "near the village of Van Voohis, six miles from Monongahela". It never talks about a town or village of Hazel Kirk. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at WP:OUTCOMES. Populated places of verified existence are almost always kept. Whether something has a zip code or is a township seat is irrelevant. MAP QUEST doesn't seem to be confused as to whether there is a place called "Hazel Kirk, PA." The search engine RECORDSBASE.COM seems to think it is a place that exists... Carrite (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've seen it before. That essay is an interesting read, but not policy or guideline. A more detailed essay relevant here would be WP:NGEO. For Populated places without legal recognition (which is what this would be) it says "are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." GNG, which is exactly why I'm here. I see coverage of a mine with that name, but as a "community", I don't see anything passing GNG. In the event that GNG isn't met, then "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." would apply, bringing us back to the redirect that I said I wouldn't oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would like to make formal note that the nominator is stripping out new work and laying in inapplicable DUBIOUS tags in an effort to tendentiously undermine the saving of this piece. I am going to step back now for a day or two to allow others to weigh in here and advise the seemingly overinvested nominator to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to make a formal note that the complainer keeps removing tags by arbitrarily declaring a source perfectly valid with rationale like them being "non-commercial". He also needs to read WP:AGFn his way to read WP:RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think published newspapers and non-commercial historical websites are not Reliable Sources, the RS Noticeboard is thataway.-> Burden of proof that they are unreliable is upon you. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, nobody said a newspaper isn't a reliable source. But your source isn't a newspaper, it's a Geocities site where two women type things and tell you that's what the newspaper said. And yeah, check your talk page, already at the RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep According to the five pillars, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and therefore should include articles on all verified settlements. Based on WP:OUTCOMES and a whole lot of past AfDs, there is a lot of precedent for keeping settlement articles as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, nobody disputes that it's there. Actually, the 5 pillars doesn't say this is a gazetteer. It says it combines features of gazettees with other things. While Outcomes is interesting, it's not policy or even a guideline. It certainly doesn't carry more weight than WP:NGEO, which tells us that populated places without a legal designations need to pass GNG or be redirected to the bigger entity (in this case Carroll Township). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Reliable Sources Noticeboard debate related to sources cited in this piece is at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources name it as a company town. United Mine Workers Locals 1477 and 2029 were there. The location was home to many Slovakian immigrant miners and their families, and boasted a schoolhouse. (Pittsburgh History, 1993, volumes 76 and 77, pages 102, 113. Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania.) The 1926 edition of Pennsylvania: A History (Lewis Historical Publishing Co.) describes a farming and mining township called Carroll, near Monongahela, containing seven towns: Frye, Hazel Kirk, Riverview, Black Diamond, Eldora, Baird and Baidland. Two obituaries describe persons born in Hazel Kirk, PA: Raymond L. Dale and August Katrencik, Sr. A bus franchise dispute was described in 1932 as involving transit between Monongahela and the "mining communities" of Hazel Kirk, Dunkirk and Van Voorhis. A 2005 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described a guy documenting all the disappearing "coal towns" of Pennsylvania, including Hazel Kirk. A 1984 newspaper article describes the danger of flooding because of ice jams at Hazel Kirk and Van Voorhis. A 1968 news article is datelined "Hazel Kirk", discussing mine fires. A 1905 news article differentiates between the Hazel Kirk mines and the community named Hazel Kirk. A 1988 news article discusses a power outage in Carroll Township affecting Hazel Kirk residents. I think the article should be kept because the place has an interesting history, and the topic can be made informative enough for our readers. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed at how mere mentions that someplace exists (something not in dispute) keeps getting seen as significant coverage. Even the first source you cite here is a table that names the mine, then gives the address as someplace else . Apparently separating the fact that there were mines named Hazel Kirk from an actual notable community named Hazel Kirk is not possible. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder why so much effort is being expended to erase valid and useful information from the encyclopedia. The place exists, we all agree, so why delete it? Various interesting events have occurred in this place; a fuller article may be composed about it. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. OUTCOMES documents the overwhelming precedent at past AFDs that real communities whose existence is proven will be kept; this article is no different from the subjects of past AFDs.  A major reason that we keep communities is that local histories are routinely printed about them, although many haven't yet made it online; someone who visits the Washington city library or the university libraries in Washington, California, or Pittsburgh will find reliable local histories that discuss this community's history.  Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Until someone visits? Um, I'm the only one in the conversation that has visited the Washington library (hundreds of times), and the Observer-Reporter offices We're here citing mere mentions as coverage. If this amount of coverage were being given to an actor, he'd likely get deleted. Same for a company. But the argument to avoid WP:ITEXISTS seems to get suspended when it's a signpost along a back road or named similarly to some mines that had an actual event.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference being, of course, that notability for actors is a relatively high bar while the notability of populated communities is the lowest of low bars. Long-established precedent is that named populated communities of confirmed existence are kept. I appreciate that you are apparently local and feel strongly about this, but this seems a clearcut keep per both precedent and cited sources. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per every keep !vote above. Why prolong this converstation?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:54, 25 March 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.