Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen City, Iowa


 * 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 by overwhelming consensus/SNOW Cheers,  I 'mperator 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen City, Iowa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a very small town that is not notable as per our guidelines and whose existance can hardly be verified in published reliable sources. There is little out there in the news or on the web to hint at the existance of this town and the few hints I can find are in nonreliable sources. I have checked on Google Scholar and have found no discussion of the town, the same with Google News. This isn't about a remote town in China that could have a myriad of sources unavailiable to English speaking editors; this is a town in the United States, where Google indexes very minor news stories that should at least name-drop the town. We cannot develop an encyclopedic article about this place using reliable sources on hand, and reliable sources are the foundation to our articles.

This article was deleted via prod and then contested with the assertion that "all towns are notable" which is found nowhere within our policy or guidelines. The deletion policy does state, however, that articles may be deleted when they are about nonnotable subjects and when they are unable to be backed using reliable sources. I also note that because Wikipedia is not a directory we don't have many articles on towns just because they are towns. We have many articles on towns because many towns are notable. Since existence doesn't confer notability and notability is not inherited, this means that not all towns are notable and this particular town is a prime example of that.  Them From  Space  21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think the town exists today but may have existed previously. However, even a quick google search shows that there are no reliable sources to back up any claim in the article. Warrior  4321  22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (See below). Google isn't the end-all source of all references. I don't think we can be absolutely sure that there are no reliable sources for this city. Currently though, there are none and I was not able to find any. The only source I could find to come close to verifying its (possibly previous) existence is this, which is no basis for an article. Jujutacular talkcontribs 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - the de facto consensus is that all officially recognized inhabited places are notable. Notability isn't temporary and this site clearly existed at some point.  The town itself & a couple features of the town are listed in Geonames, which is certainly a reliable source. Google Books turns up 16 hits.  Among these are a U.S. Senate document (certainly a RS) & several genealogy documents (most likely reliable).  Here is a collection of letters written by someone who lived there. There are certainly more reliable sources in existence that aren't available online.  For example, Iowa gov't documents and specialist material about the history of the area. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you have cited is a trivial mention. Articles on towns are not in any way special and shouldn't recieve blanket protection from our policies and guidelines; they still need non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources to be considered notable. I don't see what's so hard to understand here.  Them  From  Space  01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing that is (apparently) "so hard to understand" is that policies/guidelines are primarily descriptive, not proscriptive. There is a general consensus that certain things are notable even without the usual multiple non-trivial sources.  Populated places is at the top of this (virtual) list.  If this was an existent town of say 10 people their would be almost no delete votes at all.  The only real issue here is verifiability.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why the notability guidelines shouldn't be prescribed to town articles as most all towns are indeed notable.I for one will gladly nominate town articles for deletion if they appear nonnotable, yet that rarely happens. This one is the exception to the rule.  It is very important to still have standards for discrimination, even if they are easy to pass. There are two issues here, notability and verifiability. Verifiability is shaky, and notability isn't present. Each is a reason for deletion.  Them  From  Space  02:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. Cited sources only attested, that some city with this name exist, but not more. --Yopie (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, and without prejudice, delete. While reliable sources may mention a place called Queen City, there is no source material (including the books referred to above) that supports the claims in the entry. While no policy states it, consensus is that places populated at any time are considered notable and warrant separate entries. However, that is subject to verifiability. We may not be doctors here, but the maxim "first do no harm" applies here. Multiple different places with similar or identical names are common in US history, so without reliable sourcing, there is no presumption that the information in this entry is correct. Bongo  matic  01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional information restored. Unlikely to be materially incorrect even if sourcing less than ideal. Keep. Bongo  matic  01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The plaque says "possibly", note. It doesn't say unequivocally that there actually was such a town.  And, in contrast, a Iowa State Dept. of Health report dated 1901 documents transfers from a Queen City Cemetery in 1863.  We can confirm that a cemetery exists, although there's apparently nothing verifiable to write about it, but no source, not even the plaque pictured, unequivocally confirms that a town exists, or ever did exist. Uncle G (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: a have restored the two pics that the article's original creator supplied. (They were deleted as unclear license but the supplied text says the author released them - I'm not an expert on image policy, but I believe that they should be OK.)  In any case, one of the images (File:M8a.jpg) is a historical marker that appears to have been source used to write the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The source that was apparently used to write the article was the Google Books page, whose URL you edited out.  &#9786;  As I wrote at User talk:DGG, I have no access to that, and when I came across this article doing Proposed Deletion patrol, I was unable to find any source anywhere that documented a Queen City at Lake Binder or near to Corning.  And Queen City Cemetery, of Quincy Township, is mentioned, not documented in depth, in sources, being given just a name check in various lists.  We already have it similarly name checked in Quincy Township, Adams County, Iowa.  Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the text of the article very closely matches the content of the plaque. The person who wrote the article mistaken added that it was known to be mentioned in only one source and then linked to that source (a diary) - that diary only mentions the city but supplies little, if any info.  I removed the sentence because it was factually inaccurate that it was known to exist only from that one source as there are several other mentions of it.  The sentence was (inaccurate) original research on the article creator's part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that consensus is that "places populated at any time are considered notable and warrant separate entries". I also agree that this town verifiably (based on restored material) existed at some point. Therefore keep. Jujutacular talkcontribs 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Uncle G (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It existed. Jujutacular talkcontribs 02:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a search result page, not a source. What source are you pointing to? Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ,, , etc. Jujutacular talkcontribs 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the next question: What concrete facts do those sources provide about this subject?  What article content can be made from them for this article?  Please state a fact about this subject that one of those sources states.  Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't presume that you can extrapolate any encyclopedic material from those sources, I merely list them as verification of the existence of this town. Jujutacular talkcontribs 03:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All villages, towns and other human settlements that have ever been inhabited are notable. Good workable rule, eliminating hundreds of thousands of debates on how many inhabitants are needed or just what evidence is significant. The problem with this one was the lack of sourcing in the original article. The article talks about the archeology, and we need a good source for that--it would settle all doubts, or ther sentence about it may have to be modified, to simply say the USGIS is the source for there being a cemetery there. . The USGIS data is definitive proof of existence., and I would like anyone skeptical to try to explain why it isn't. Additionally, the Senate document talking about a mail route there is also proof of existence, and in fact of being substantial enough to have a mail route. Has anyone looked at the census reports for the period? Thaddeus has answered the objections of those who look at a low quality unsourced article and conclude that it is unsourceable, apparently on the false assumption that G is complete for the 18th century. Google will probably be more or less complete for 19th century US newspapers whose files can be located in another 10 years, or perhaps 20. Fortunately, there's already enough on the web for this one to meet the objections of even those who refuse to look further. I am a little puzzled at Uncle G's objections to the sources in the present article--they seem to really be searching for conceivable but very unlikely gaps.    DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You still provide no policy-based argument as to why this should be kept although I have named several widely accepted policy based arguments showing why the article is flawed and should be deleted. This has no shot at meeting the notability guidelines and you all but admit this while still allowing for its inclusion, even though none of us have any clue as to its existence. Your argument seems to be a blend of "other stuff exists", "existance = notability", and "inherited notability"; all of which are not at all policy based and should be avoided.  Them From  Space  02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your puzzlement is puzzling, since there aren't any sources in the article, and my objections are quite clearly discussing a lack of sources. The only thing put forward as a source thus far is a plaque, which (as noted above) says "possibly". Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Geonames uses A.T. Andreas illustrated historical atlas of the state of Iowa, 1875 as its source. This work and its many derivatives can be found at a number of Iowa libraries and a few non-Iowan libraries.  See:
 * Keep If consensus such as discussed above hasn't been reached already, the concept certainly has merit and should be reached (perhaps here). I'll add this source which indicates a Baptist minister "Mercer, J.T." serving the subject community during 1868. The Geonames resource seems to indicate a location very different from the location description in the article "five miles west of present day Corning". Plotting the Geonames coordinates (each of those surveys taking place in the last 30 years), the populated location seems to be under the man-made lakebed two miles north-northeast of Corning, a valley at that time, the old cemetery (possible location of the marker) north in the crotch of the lake (a hill above the town), and the newer cemetery (the other likely location) just meters north of that. The post office (formerly known as Icaria) is actually some distance southeast of the cemeteries (and about three miles east of Corning, Iowa). My plot analysis being original research, of course. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the concept certainly has merit &mdash; Actually, no it doesn't, and it's been demolished by counterexamples several times over the years, including at least one ghost town that came to AFD some years back (whose name I really would like to remember). Notability is not a blanket.  In-depth coverage in multiple independent sources by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy is key.  Any other approach gets us exactly the sort of extrapolation, interpolation, and outright guesswork that you are talking about, and has done, time and again. We should not look for blankets.  We need to show that this subject is notable, that it is covered in depth by such multiple independent sources by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  And that's all that we need to show. So far we have a plaque saying "possibly", some books that contain the three words "queen city iowa" in that order but from which no actual facts about the subject (such as, as you note, where it even was) can be obtained, and a record of someone proposing a postal route.  Where is the evidence that there's content available to be put into this article?  Because what we have so far only gets us content if Wikipedia editors make extrapolations and interpolations, including Bongomatic's overlooked editorial assumption mentioned above that these are even all the same town (if it is a town).  See Hell, Arizona for why that's a bad assumption.  (Indeed, we already have indications that there were two cemeteries, as you yourself note.)  Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that makes your opinion that everything should have to comply with the GNG any more correct than the opposing opinion that some things are inherently notable. There is nothing magical about two non-trivial sources - it is merely the way we define notability to make it as objective as possible.  However, this definition is not obviously superior to any other consensus based definition of notability.  The community has long defined certain things as being excluded from this definition in both directions - sometimes explicitly in policy, other times only by precedent.  Technically every news story that makes at lest two papers meets WP:N, but we define these out of notability via WP:NOTNEWS. Technically, most professors fail the GNG as only their work is covered and not the professor themselves, but we define them in via WP:PROF.  By convention, some things are notable because of their real world importance and only need to be verifiable to get articles.  This includes clearly defined populated places, living creatures, geographical features, secondary schools, and probably other things. Also by convention, certain other things require more than merely being covered in two reliable sources. This list is less well defined but arguably includes internet memes, people famous only for being famous, sports figures, and other elements of pop culture. (Of course all these things can be and often are found to be notable, but the level of coverage required is a bit higher than for other subjects.)  Our notability guidelines are designed to provide a general frame work about what is and is not notable, not to be an absolute authority on what can and cannot have an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please look at the source I added. After reading, backtrack to page 412. Here we have an extended discussion on the Icarian community nearby (fascinating stuff). I contend that sufficient sources have been presented to prove verifiability. The Geonames cite with the new source (plus the nifty map Abductive linked) equals multiple independent sources for a squeak-by on general notability. (I'll grant "in-depth" is lacking, but I suspect Corning library could provide any depth you require.) When I assert merit, I make this point: because we're building an encyclopedia (a specialist encyclopedia, therefore an historical gazetteer), significant historical population locations (particularly locations which cannot by mere existence assert notability) are defacto notable. IMHO, this serves the purpose of eventually fully fleshing the local geographical history. We're not talking about rumor, hoax, a rare Pokemon card, or a temporary camp; we're discussing a place where many hundred Iowans were born, lived, went to church, and died (and as it turns out, these days, go fishing). It suits the encyclopedic purpose of this community to keep such pages, in order to provide a detailing. Home genealogists will love us for this benchmark. Room for expansion here. BusterD (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've been adding links to pagespace, the reasons why we should keep become clearer. The Icarian movement article has a section entitled Corning, Iowa which discusses Icarians coming to Adams County beginning in 1853, but according to sources Corning town didn't exist (except as timberland cut down by the Icarians) until after the ACW. Queen City was the nearby municipality while Quincy was the county seat. So the section head uses an anachronistic name and gives an incorrect impression of association. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looky here this zoomable antique map shows Queen City to the NNE of Corning. It was north of the BNR tracks, 2/3 in Quincy Township, 1/3 in Prescott Township, and much bigger than Icaria. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, towns are inherently notable and notability isn't temporary. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Barring the possibility that someone has faked a historical marker, I already would have found it fairly clear that Queen City was a separate community that existed more than a century ago. More sources have been added to confirm that it once was.  The consensus in discussions is that all identifiable inhabited places are notable, and that applies even after the places are no longer inhabited.  Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a verified formerly populated place.  young  american  (wtf?) 15:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Verifiable locations are inherently notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This site clearly existed at some point. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Luckily, Adams County, Iowa, is one of the places covered by newspaperarchive.com; this link may or may not work, but that service allows people to look at the front pages of its newspapers for free, and this was on page one of the Corning, Iowa, newspaper on April 10, 1997.  In case the link doesn't work, I've pasted the text over on the Wikipedia page-- it's not copyrighted, but hopefully it can be paraphrased.  Interesting story-- it existed from 1857 to 1885, and during that time had a couple of hotels and even had two newspapers-- but the railroad put the depot in Corning rather than Queen City, and that corporate decision killed Q.C.;  Some of the most interesting articles on Wikipedia can be found through AfD, and some of them turn out to be keepers. Mandsford (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the text to the article's talk page for now. I will work on incorporating the information into the main article later if no one else does so first.  However, what makes you think it isn't under copyright?
 * Incidentally, it doesn't at all surprise me there is local coverage like this. People mistakenly assume GoogleNews is complete for smaller papers, and medium papers older than say 20 years, it is far from complete.  I would surmise there were also several other stories around the time the lake was built. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep All verifiable, distinct settlements are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - All verifiable towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of its current state. Notability is permanent.--Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on other ghost towns, and while this one isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places and isn't a tourist attraction, it contributes to the history of Adams County, Iowa.  If it had hotels and newspapers, its existence is notable enough.  It wasn't just a townsite that was platted on paper to entice settlement, then forgotten when people didn't settle there.  (Anyone remember the town of Hennepin in Eden Prairie, Minnesota?) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously this should be kept per above chorus.  Just noting that I dug for U.S. Census records and found that a Queen City Township existed until 1873 where Queen City was located.  Also added ref to 1860 Census Records for Adams County Iowa which includes data on all 212 Queen City Township residents at that time.--Milowent (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on the page! Thanks! BusterD (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent set for such articles. It is encyclopedic, sourced, and has had some minor historical impact. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Real places are inherently notable and sources have been found. Edward321 (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- small, defunct, and thus perhaps not notable today, but it did exist and there is thus no reason to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting historical article. Well referenced. Has been vastly improved since the AFD began. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Existence has been verified, and real places are considered notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it is verified that it existe. -- Pedro J. the rookie 03:16, 30 August 2009 (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.