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. While the nominator's work is diligent, the delete option did not reach consensus. Geschichte (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meinert, 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)

Don't think this place passes WP:GEOLAND. The State Historical Society calls it a small trading point, which isn't a sign of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tingley, Missouri). I'm finding some Google books hits for a Lutheran Church at the site, as well as one old source that mentioned something being on the window in the store at Meinert. GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which generally seems to be for places without the legal recognition needed to pass WP:GEOLAND. The topos show three buildings at the site, one of which is the church. I'm not seeing how a church, a store, and apparently one other building passes GEOLAND, and GNG doesn't seem to be met, either. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way we interpret GEOLAND is by discussing individual articles at afd. Reading it, I see that "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. " I see that an anon ed. says they have sources, so they should be added.

We are normally on all subjects much more flexible in accepting weak articles on historically existing or historically relevant topics. Doing a wider interpretation in such cases is within our discretion. Guidelines are called guidelines because they describe what we usually do. The consensus here will either agree that this should be an exception, or not. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source the IP mentions is the source mentioned in the nom that calls it a "trading point", I believe. It's a solid two sentences. Hog Farm Bacon 15:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:34, 19 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.