Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinhook, Decatur County, Indiana

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. ✗plicit 00:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinhook, Decatur County, Indiana

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "nothing there" spot about which I can only find the barest passing reference in one of those old county histories. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, has no reliable sources. Has no notable features that would make it comply with WP:NGEO. Pygos (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero information found, name just miraculously appears on USGS topo maps in 1958: [1] without any apparent infrastructure. Nothing but a couple rural homes today. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't believe I have to ask this, but, as this place seems to be existent, just very obscure, should this article be kept just for the sake of completeness of Decatur County, Indiana? It's obviously not up to WP:NGEO, but so are many of the other articles in Decatur County, Indiana, like Knarr Corner, Indiana and New Pennington, Indiana. Deleting this would mean that many other articles of similar quality should be deleted. I recognize this situation similar to that discussed in Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Notability and British Rail stations. Is this place notable just for existing? What do you think? Pygos (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pygos: Please see WP:EXIST. As for other articles of similar quality being deleted, by all means, let's delete them. Have a look at my edit history and you'll see that clearing Wikipedia of stubs like this is a recent crusade of mine. If a place has no documentation then an article on it does nothing but clutter the internet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a named place, at least according to some topo maps. That's all we know. We don't have reliable evidence for what this particular name-on-a-map represents, yet we're still calling it an "unincorporated community" in wikivoice and linking to the census despite it having no mention there. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.