Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Holly, Minnesota

: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. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Mount Holly, Minnesota]]=

:{{la|Mount Holly, Minnesota}} ([{{fullurl:Mount Holly, Minnesota|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Holly, Minnesota}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The subject is a town "founded" in 2005, with a population of four. In a nutshell: Some guy tries to declare his house a town, but is rebuffed multiple times by The Man. Finally, on his drivers license renewal form, he declares his residence as the non-existent town of "Mt. Holly", and the paperwork successfully goes through. He now has a driver's license that shows "Mount Holly, Minnesota" as his residence, but I wouldn't think this qualifies as legal recognition, strictly speaking. There was some degree of news coverage at the time, but it doesn't appear to be exhaustive enough to validate what is essentially a publicity stunt. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep The crux of this is, "Did the stunt deliver?" If he managed to obtain official recognition for being a stroppy git in the driving licence office, then he's now the mayor of what is the smallest recognised town in Minnesota. (Somewhere has to be the smallest.) I see no reason to doubt the sourcing that's already on the article. Is anyone in a suitable time zone to just phone the guy up? I imagine he has a file of press clippings. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Has recieved coverage in press, referenced. Just needs some cleanup. RedThunder 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteI googled, and typed it into the News google archive. There have been precisely two articles in real newwspapers, both in Minnesota. Nor has the town been "recognized" by the state. If you read the article in "the Rake" it describes a process where the guy filled out his driver's license with the name of the town he had invented and the clerk didn't change it. This is an amusing stunt. But as a phenomenon, it doesn't amount to much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep All verifiable places are inherently notable. Also, being the smallest town in a state seems to give it extra notability. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So is "The Spot Where I'm Sitting" inherently notable? It definitely has latitude and longitude, and is verifiable. This goes to an absurd extension of making every village notable. A house is not a village, and not even a hamlet. Edison2 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with all the above keeps and after reviewing some of the blog and press coverage, I suspect that come the 2010 Census, Mount Holly, MN will make the list.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I honestly don't know where to draw the line on pranks and cranks. Perhaps somewhere along the lines of notable only for one event, which is not directly applicable because the article is about the prank rather than the crank. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) No offense intended. I am a bit of a crank myself. Ningauble (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is not a town named Mount Holly, Minnesota. The fact that the drivers' license office made a mistake is not notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: The town only exists in Haag's mind. The "stunt" is not notable enough for inclusion. DCEdwards1966 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, this is just a gimmick news item. -Hunting dog (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No more notable than the town of The House I Live In. Totally ridiculous notion that every person in the world is entitled to declare his house a town and have an article about it in the encyclopedia. Delete also per WP:NOTNEWS. It is a prank that got a splash of publicity. Edison2 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The article from The Rake states, "The location of this city is in the city of Shakopee." In other words, he lives in Shakopee. Unless and until he forms his own municipal government, which takes care of its own infrastructure and levies its own taxes and such, he's still a resident of Shakopee. So, this article should be deleted as a hoax. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Clerical actions do not merit encyclopedia articles. I know someone who is the second-generation holder of a name and signs his name " ... II." A state once issued him a driver's license on which the Roman numeral Is became 1s, and an extra one slipped in, making him the 111th. An amusing slip-up but not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Neither is Mount Holly, Minnesota. Fg2 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a quick note, I cleaned up the article and added some reliable sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm all in favour of the "every village is notable" viewpoint, but this isn't a village, town or city - it's simply a clerical error. Having the name mistakenly put on a driver's licence in no way makes it "official". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clerk makes error. Film at 11. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (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.