Talk:Gordon Springs, Georgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still have my doubts that this is the proper naming convention for a creek/spring/stream. I also still have my doubts that a spring, measuring less than a thousand meters, is encyclopedic. I know this article passed VfD, so the concensus was yes, it is. I'd still like to see examples of other insignificant creeks/springs/streams in Wikipedia. Lastly, I've contacted government officials in Whitfield County to clarify the existence of an 'associated settlement' (quoting article). I also have asked for clarification on any historical status of such a community within this county. --Durin 04:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the VfD vote, Gordon Springs is a historical locale named after the springs, although the article as presently written foregrounds the springs and creek. I voted keep because it is a historical locale. I would not have voted to keep it if there were not any historical associations with the place. That is, if all that was known about this place was that it is a small spring and a creek, then I'd agree that it doesn't merit a separate article. Further, even if there were enough interesting things to say about such a small spring or creek to merit an article -- if the content were solely about the spring or creek then I'd also agree that this is misnamed -- in such as case, a name more consistent with other geographical features like rivers would be Gordon Springs (Georgia). older≠wiser 22:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. With that in mind, my concern is that this may or may not be an actual community. It's not an incorporated town, that much is certain. According to the USGS [1], this place has a 'class code' of U8. According to [2], U8 is defined as "Identifies a populated place located wholly or substantially outside the boundaries of an incorporated place or CDP but whose name has not been verified as authoritative by the U.S. Geological Survey." Looking at the terraserver image, there's maybe two of three buildings in the vicinity of the creek. I'm hard pressed to think of this as being notable enough to warrant an article on it.
As a test of sorts, I looked at this [3], and brought up the data for the county in which I live in. I've been living here for 14 years. The county I live in is geographically small, just ~400 square miles and a population of 120,000. In my county the USGS query brought up five places with a U8 code, like Gordon Springs has. I've never heard the names of any of those five 'places'. Try it for your own county, and see what you think. A 'U8' just doesn't seem notable enough on its own for inclusion. To me, there's got to be some other reason why it should be notable enough for inclusion.
As an historical place, yes there are references. Do any of these make it notable enough to include it? Well, this reference [4] that you previously cited has no entry for population, but there was a post office. These two references [5] and [6] place Gordon Springs in Walker County, the next county west of Whitfield County where the article's references Gordon Springs as being. Confusing. I'll grant that some place called "Gordon Springs" existed, and most probably in Whitfield County, though there may have been another place called "Gordon Springs" in Walker County, where the mineral springs and associated hotel sprang up...or these are the same place. Assuming best case scenario (for the existence of the article), and these are the same place, I'm pretty ambivalent on the article; it doesn't seem very noteworthy. There are 100's of thousands of miniscule places around the world...possibly millions. What sets this place apart as being worthy of notability for Wikipedia?
Let's keep in mind the origin of this article; started as a hoax page in support of a non-existent historical person. Note the companion article originally created by the same person was deleted under VfD [7].
I agree with your statement regarding the name of the article if this were solely about a creek/spring. How do you feel about unincorporated places being referred to as if they were a town? I get the implication that anything <place>, <state> is an incorporated place of some kind. This article's naming suggests it is such, but it isn't. I've not found other articles that establish a pattern for naming such unincorporated places. The only article that I've found that speaks to such a possible convention is this one: Willowbrook, Staten Island.
So, in summary; it is certain it is not currently an incorporated place, and as such probably violates the <town>, <state> convention. If there's something that makes this place historically significant, then it is probably best kept as the current name. If there isn't, then it should probably be renamed either along the river convention as you suggest, or along a convention that matches other unincorporated places.
Your thoughts? --Durin 23:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regarding naming of unincorporated communities -- in my experience, most of these that are not neighborhoods within larger municipalities are named as place, state.
  • I checked the first two communities in each letter A-E against the FIPS database. None of the ten I tested were classified as "U8" class code as Gordon Springs, Georgia is. That's not definitive; it's just a sample. I wouldn't be surprised though if none of those communities were U8. --Durin 03:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Close. There are actually two in that category Branch, Michigan and University Center, Michigan. Neither are particluarly significant, but I maintain that there is no harm in including such articles. BTW, "U8" class code only means that the USGS has not verified the information. Considering that verifying FIPS data for small locales is likely not a very high priority for the USGS, this by itself doesn't mean a whole lot. older≠wiser 22:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding historical references to the place -- Whitfield County was not organized until 1851. Both of the references you mention that refer to Walker County are recounting Zachariah Gordon's move to the place in 1840. By the USGS TopoZone map, Gordon Spring is less than a mile from the Walker County border so it is not very surprising that contemporary descriptions would place it in Walker County, since Walker originally included a large portion of what is now Whitfield County [8].
  • Ok, that makes more sense. So, the two referred to places are indeed one. --Durin 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the value of the article -- well, if this place were in Michigan, where I might be able to gather some offline data, I'd have already expanded this article. I've created dozens of articles about tiny places in Michigan that occupy some small nook in history. Rather, I'd have to ask what is the harm in having an article about a real place that clearly has some verifiable historical context? older≠wiser 01:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a number of types of things that do not warrant, according to policy, their own articles and have verifiable historical contexts. For example, elementary schools. I just don't see that this place has any historical significance sufficient to warrant the article. I'm inclined to move this article to a new name, such as the river convention you noted above. --Durin 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Simply because one is unaware of the significance of a place is rarely sufficient reason to delete an article. I'll grant that this article does nothing to establish it's significance. But I've provided a number of references describing the place which could be incorporated into the article. Perhaps I'll do it myself someday, but I prefer working on areas of the country that I at least have some direct experience of. For additional reference, consider that Georgia Backroads magazine did an article about Gordon Springs (#99) [9]. And not that this in itself is particularly notable, but there had been at least two schools in the community [10]. And for some odd reason, an 1855 letter apparently to someone at Gordon Springs can be purchased for $20 (although it seems they mistakenly associate Gordon Springs with nearby Gordon County). And there is a historical marker of some sort at Gordon Springs Gap. And there is another Civil War era marker nearby that mentions Gordon Springs, as described in these accounts [11] [12]. This also mentions the historic resources of the community. Other random references: [13] [14] [15]. older≠wiser 02:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I still firmly believe this community doesn't merit an article. Having a backroads article doesn't seem reason enough to change that opinion. As a community, we routinely delete articles covering a broad range of topics for which there is little or no notability or verifiability. This article, in my opinion, clearly falls into that general category. There's nothing historically significant about this location. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You've done a wondeful job of finding links that reference Gordon Springs, but there's precious little in them that makes this place in any respect significant. That a military force marched from it to some other place is hardly remarkable. That somebody from there got married is hardly remarkable. That someone owned some property there is hardly remarkable. The part about the hotel might be remarkable if the hotel had some fame, but that doesn't appear to be the case and in any case there's just a reference to it having existed, not whether it was famous or even successful. USGS doesn't recognize that this name is authoritative, and nobody has been able to establish what the population of this community ever was, much less is. I don't see now that there is cause to delete the article. But given that we have virtually no information about the existence of this community, the chief feature of the article is the creek/spring. As such, it should be renamed per your earlier suggested convention. Regardless, I tire of this debate; nothing is likely to change, and we're debating over some trees along some backwoods road in Georgia and whether or not they're notable. This is hardly worth either of our efforts. --Durin 03:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You write As a community, we routinely delete articles covering a broad range of topics for which there is little or no notability or verifiability. Fortunately, more people feel it is worth including verifiable articles about real places, even if they are not presently of any great significance. Notability is not a valid criteria for deletion, although many are under the misapprehension that it is. And there is verifiable information about the place, so that is not a basis for deletion here. You say the hotel had no fame, although another source mentioned it as one of the "most fashionable watering placed (sic) in Georgia", built by the father of a Confederate general. That the current population of a place is small is also rather meaningless for an article about a historical place. Like I said before, if this place was anywhere near my neck of the woods, I would have already expanded it. I may still do so, but it is not a priority for me. PS, it took very little effort to come up with all of the links that I've provided. A bit more effort (e.g., the place has had a couple of variant spellings) and perhaps some good historical print reference works about the area probably would have turned up even more info. older≠wiser 22:24, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • You say "Fortunately, more people feel it is worth including verifiable articles". This isn't the case. Please see Wikipedia:Importance which lacks concensus. I come from one side of that bench, you come from the other. I consider this matter closed. Further debate is pointless. --Durin 00:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical value?

As a Georgian, I might be able to give some background, but I also have a big, big question.

  1. In Georgia, incorporation was limited by the legislature, so no new towns or cities could be created without a special act. Thus, there are incorporated towns that have, effectively, ceased to have any population, and there are booming "cities" that are unincorporated (most notably Sandy Springs, Georgia which just won a fight that has been going on for more than 30 years to get incorporated, as it is a place in Atlanta with an enormous population and wealth and remote from the county services that had previously been its only sources of fire and police protection).
  2. Question: What exactly is the historical significance of Gordon Springs? There were no Civil War battles there that I know of. It was not a site for the incursions against the Cherokee, that I can tell. It was not associated with the Dahlonega Gold Rush. If its historical significance is that it was a luxury location associated with Gordon himself, then that leaves precious little for a separate article.
  3. It seems to me that the question is not "should Gordon Springs be mentioned somewhere," but "should a geo-article exist on a non-town, non-city that is also unpopulated because once it was associated with a particular historical figure?" I.e. can this information (where it is and what the springs are) be put into an article on Gordon? Does the information even make sense as a stand-alone -- is its reason for inclusion even comprehensible?

To me, it seems, especially since the current article has no mention of historical role, that there is no justification for a separate, geography article on the place. (And, incidentally, I'm one of the generally radical inclusionists when it comes to towns.) Geogre 03:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/r/Talk%7EGordon_Springs%2C_Georgia_4b1f.html"