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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda, Benton County, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

GNIS is sourced to a 1919 (non-topo) map called the New World War Chart, although it's not mentioned by the rather comprehensive state historical society source. Pre-GNIS topos do not show a Hilda, although the coordinates are near Mount Hulda, Missouri. 1969 county history makes no mention of a Hilda. Newer topos show Hilda, but not Mount Hulda. Since the SHS society states that Mount Hulda was formerly known as Hulda, it looks like what probably happened is that the 1919 map made an error and it was then copied into GNIS. Within the last 20 years, the topos were just made with the town names copied from GNIS. So essentially, one 1919 map and GNIS are the only things stating that a Hilda in Benton County ever existed. Given that nobody besides GNIS and the many bot-generated websites trawling GNIS state that Hilda ever existed, I don't think a merge or redirect to Mount Hulda is worth it. Clear GNIS screwup. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Also does not have sourcing to pass WP:N Wm335td (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @JPxG: I've found no clear and convincing evidence this ever actually existed. It appears to be a data entry error. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - so I am unsure why we would merge. Wm335td (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Paul H. (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2020 (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.