Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coxs Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey

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. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coxs Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. Cannot be found on GNIS, and no geo-coordinates were placed on the article to help find it on a map. The only source is the unreliable New Jersey Locality Search. No reliable source could be found to verify this as a once-populated place (or any place at all). Magnolia677 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for nominator: How did you determine that the official state database of place names for New Jersey is an unreliable source? Why would you ask for this entry to be deleted rather than be converted into a redirect. How was I able to find the Arcadia Publishing article in a few nanoseconds, and you were not able to find it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It shows up in Zillow and Mapquest and other location based services so it is a real place, if locations are inherently notable, so is this place. It also shows up in an Arcadia book. "The tiny hamlet Coxs Corner surrounds the juncture. Although the Cox family had been in Upper Freehold since the 17th century, the author has not seen this placename on a map prior to 1917." There are three entities in New Jersey in three counties with this name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place exists as described above by Richard. Therefore, there is no reason to delete it. It might be argued that, based on notability guidelines, it could be redirected to the geography section of Upper Freehold, the township within which it resides, but no reason exists to completely remove. Famartin (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I would suggest to the original creator of the article that the two source guideline be followed; many articles by User:Tinton5 only have one source listed, which invites deletion. Famartin (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete The real problem is this: if you go to the described location, there is no there there. That is, it's not an "unincorporated community"; it's just a crossroads with a couple of houses, and a little bit away, a tractor dealer. Well, and apparently an office park is being built there, judging from this url which can be seen on a sign in front of the tractor place. Taking every placename stuck on a map at face value produces a lot of largely spurious articles— not so much that the places don't "exist", but rather that what we say about them isn't really true. We could write something of an article about this placename, but about the only things from the current article which is true is the description of its location. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - As the nominator of this deletion, I'm pleased that one reliable source has been provided to show this is a real place. That being said, my threshold for the creation of a stand-alone article is that I can find the settlement listed on GNIS as a "populated place" (not as a "locale"). I've created several articles about ghost towns in Mississippi, and chose not to add many former plantations, which were listed on GNIS as a locale (somewhere I read this was based on consensus). The question may be, what is the threshold for inclusion as a stand-alone article on Wikipedia? User:Mangoe's comment is well taken. This may need a fresh discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ask for deletion and not argue to make it a redirect through the talk page? You have not addressed this yet, so I am asking again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are seven historic homes here if this is correct. But the good news is that "The two houses on the corner are on the wrong corners as far as lining up the intersection" and "in order to align the intersection, one or both of these houses may have to be bought by the county and demolished" so there is hope yet for anyone wanting to get rid of this article. Thincat (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is not an incorporated place, it would help to actually look at WP:GEOLAND, which Magnolia677 references to justify deletion - "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." GNIS is a reliable and verifiable source, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. New Jersey Locality Search is also a reliable and verifiable source, but it too is not sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. The article for Fair Play, New Jersey created by Magnolia677 here with only a GNIS source does not meet the WP:GEOLAND notability standard. The article for Coxs Corner under discussion here did not meet this standard as created. I concur with those who specify a minimum two-source standard, and this is what the definition of "multiple, independent reliable sources" would appear to require. Under this clear definition of WP:GEOLAND, the original versions of the Fair Play and Coxs Corner articles should each have been turned into redirects to the parent municipality article (as Magnolia677 would seem to agree here, though he offers no acceptable rationale for deletion rather than turning it into a redirect). Data from GNIS is duplicated in other sources -- such as Google Maps, Mapquest and Zillow, among many other such mapping and location-based search sites -- and the use of a GNIS source combined with one of these GNIS mirrors does not constitute a second independent source. The book source added to the Coxs Corner article by RAN is a second independent source here and that meets this bare minimum multiple source standard, which is why the article as it currently exists should be retained per WP:GEOLAND. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Fair Play, New Jersey didn't meet the notability standards when it was first created. In that case, editors should attempt to improve the article, or nominate it for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fair Play is now a healthy article. This one may be too. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Play is another "no there there" place name. If you look at any of the maps used as citations, not a single one that I can see has the place name on the map! The intersection in question is just that, and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will open this to anyone: Is the New Jersey Locality Search at nj.gov unreliable? Or is this nomination really about something else, and I can ignore the statement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable. The issue of a perceived lack of reliability is solely in the mind of one editor. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen others suggest both the NJ State Locator and GNIS are unreliable, but I disagree with them. Are errors possible? Sure, most works have some errors. Is most of the information correct? Yes, it would certainly seem to be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Most of the unincorporated stubs could probably be expanded into non-stubs given adequate research. Notability does include the entire history of the site, so even if a location is not notable "now" it may have been (probably was) in the past. Of course, many of the smaller and more historic stubs probably don't have a lot of information on-line, so that would require (gasp) reading books and newspapers. Famartin (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only practical use for the List of New Jersey Local Names is for locating which township a city or town is in. For any other use, it is of low accuracy. The New Jersey database lists cities, towns, rivers, mountaintops, and so forth, but doesn't differentiate between types of geographic locations. Included in that database you will find "Pond Run" in Hamilton Township, Mercer County, which GNIS lists as a stream; "Duck Island" in Hamilton Township, Mercer County, which GNIS lists as an island; "The Alligator" in Jackson Township, Ocean County, which GNIS lists as a "locale" (a locale is NOT a populated place); and my favorite, "Apple Pie Hill" (you can look that one up yourself!). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this unreliable? I still do not understand. Yes, it lists those things you pointed out, but they are not typographical errors. I think you are trying to say that the database doesn't have the level of detail that you would prefer. That is not an issue of reliability. These are historic geographic features or historical hamlets that appear in historic records of the state. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed the Pond Run and Duck Island situations previously. Pond Run was a hamlet; historic maps make this clear. Duck Island is considered a section of Trenton (and, in fact, is no longer an island). Famartin (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with GNIS (and one guesses the NJ site) isn't accuracy per se; it is and has always been notability. The mere knowledge of a placename is not sufficient evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that. However, the lack of a current Wikipedia article, or an article's existence as merely a stub, is also not grounds of qualifying it as non-notable. Such a determination requires significant searching and research. Famartin (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow...looking at this page now, it's incredible how much it expanded, thanks to many. At first, sure it may have been subject to deletion due to lack of third party sources, but now at its current state, even with a picture nonetheless, it definitely warrants an article. No one mentioned, but Coxs Corner is even signed on I-195 exit 11. It gets highly criticized due to its funny name, when locals pass by there. Tinton5 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This article should be redirected, and it's information merged into the Wrightsville, New Jersey article.

This article states that Cox's Corner "is at the juncture of County Route 524 and County Route 43". So is Wrightsville (mentioned in the article). Here is Wrightsville's GNIS entry. Click on ACME Mapper and look at the TOPO map.
The article states, "Wrightsville just east of Cox’s Corner". To support this, the article lists two sources:
- The first source, published by the State of New Jersey, acknowledges in THREE places that Wrightsville IS Cox's Corner (pages 4, 10 and 27).
- The second source states "Cox's Corner in Upper Freehold Township. Monmouth County, a location later known as Wrightsville."

Did I miss something?

This source states: "Cox's Corner was inexplicably renamed Wrightsville".
This dialogue from what appears to be some smart New Jersey cookies refers to the marker at the settlement's location: "Cox's Corner at Imlaystown-Hightstown Road and Rt. 524 in Wrightsville. This one is set in stone."
Only this NPS nomination form differentiates Wrightsville from Cox's Corner, but it's confusing when you read it (to me anyway).
I have another concern. The article states, "the first appearance of Cox's Corner on a New Jersey map was in 1917". Really? The source cited states "although the Cox family had been in Upper Freehold since the 17th century, the author has not seen this placement on a map prior to 1917". Where's this New Jersey map, from an author publishing his book through Arcadia?

Redirect. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a separate proposal from deletion. That said, there is a decent argument for merging. I'm not sure of the rules on this, but you might have to wait for this debate to conclude before making a separate suggestion to merge. Also, this would not involve deletion; we would still keep a redirect to Wrightsville. The name Cox's Corner obviously has usage. Famartin (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I voted keep above). I think there is a good case for merging Cox's Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey and Wrightsville, New Jersey in some way. At the present time they certainly refer to the same place. In brief, historically Cox's Corner was founded first, then Wrightsville farmstead was established very near to the east, then Wrightsville stopped being called by a distinct name, now the people who live in the region of the two original farmsteads call the whole area Cox's Corner[1][2] and map makers and some NJ authorities seem to call it Wrightsville. The most interesting document is in the NRHP nomination written by the owner of a house that was undoubtedly built in a location known as Wrightsville at the time it was built. "On 19th century maps the small cluster of roadside houses near the Meeting House [i.e. 0.3 miles E of the crossroads] was identified as 'Wrightsville.' The name fell into disuse but reappeared on modern maps as the (erroneous) label for the Cox's Corner intersection, which is actually a short distance to the west along the same road. Recently, to our surprise, Wrightsville – which no longer exists as an entity – has been resurrected on the large signs for Exit 11 of Interstate 195."https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/87002561_text PS: I am familiar with this problem in Scotland where maps and road signs often get place names "wrong" according to the locals. Thincat (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (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.