Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Elmhurst, Illinois


 * 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 delete. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

South Elmhurst, Illinois

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was created by a user as part of a series of questionable edits creating pages for non-existent locations in Illinois. The ZIP code allegedly corresponding with this place is actually for South Elgin, in a completely different county. PRODed as hoax a few months ago, but PROD was removed by another editor. Delete as hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I tried really hard to assume good faith, but this appears to be a demi-hoax. GNIS notes the subject as a "populated place" but at different coordinates. It is not a CDP and it has no relation to the cited Boulder Hill CDB, which is in a different part of the state. An independent search only gets real estate listings. Not 100% false but essentially a hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The only use of "South Elmhurst" seems to be as a description: the southern portion of Elmhurst. Hoaxilicious. Delete the article, block the editor for disruptive editing. Edison (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By whom? The USGS recognizes the place as official, methinks you didn't look too hard so your delete !vote is based on incomplete information and a false assumption. Hopefully, the closing admin will assess that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that the "Census Designated Place" referenced is "Boulder Hill," a different name than this hoax place, and that it is in Kendall County, a different county from the county this place is supposed to be in?  This was pointed out above by Gene93k.Edison (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep the USGS recognizes South Elmhurst as a populated place (see ). As the rest of the article could be bogus, it should be pared back but not deleted per WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carlossuarez46--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Elmhurst, Illinois or Delete &mdash; No evidence at all of WP:GNG; plenty of evidence that this is an occasionally-used neighborhood/directional name, not a separate place. Even when I look for "South Elmhurst" history on Google, about half the time it shows up with a lower-case "s" instead of "S" in "south".  My guess is that it probably has a USGS GNIS entry because it had a railroad stop at some point: "Elmhurst" in DuPage Roots says "The coming of the Chicago Great Western Railroad in 1887 and the Illinois Central in 1888 stimulated commercial and residential development in south Elmhurst." (Note lower-case "s".)  I also found the name as a cutoff point for a section of rail line in Past History and Future Prospects of the Great Chicago Western Railway Company (1900), p. 84.   A USGS GNIS entry is not recognition as a legal, or even statistical, entity.  Methinks Carlossuarez46 (to use his own words) didn't look too hard into what USGS GNIS classes indicate, and criticizes based on incomplete information and a false assumption.  (Boilerplate I'm using for all these nominations: This is a series of WP:HOAX articles by, each one using a USGS GNIS entry, then copy-pasted claims from other towns or patently-false claims about being incorporated or otherwise a legally-autonomous entity or having some other significant history, so that it appears to the casual viewer that WP:GEOLAND applies or otherwise gives the façade of meeting WP:GNG, and a mess like this deletion discussion ensues.  In each case, the bulk of the article has been fantasy, often provably false, sometimes with alleged locator maps, also invented by Bnnnperdue.  USGS GNIS populated place entries only mean that a place with that name was once on a map or reported to exist at some point; lots of USGS GNIS entries have no significant cultural history and don't meet WP:GNG; for example, many were mere train stops or intersections with few buildings or other activity.  Given the creator's hoax history over the last few months, there's no reason to presume that a subject is/was notable; go look at User talk:Bnnnperdue and User:Closeapple/issues/User:Bnnnperdue and you'll see what's going on here.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Elmhurst since, even if it is a real place, all that exists is a one sentence substub. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 03:10, 17 July 2016 (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.