Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Beech, Kentucky

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Beech, Kentucky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: several things don't add up. The article says the town was destroyed by mountaintop removal mining. If I use the coordinates from the article, it definitely shows a reclaimed surface mine in this spot. It's on a hilltop away from a main road - not a natural place for a community to sprout up. Except for possibly a company coal town, these little East Kentucky town are always down in valleys along roads. So maybe was this a coal town? Coal towns were built to house families of miner who worked in underground coal mines, which were labor intensive (unlike surface mines). They were near the mine's tipple and the main entrance to the mine. The tipple, in turn, was on a railroad line. There'd be settling ponds nearby. I don't see railroad tracks or settling ponds which would still be visible.

Maybe the article's coordinates are wrong?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to United States Geological Survey topographic maps going back many decades for these coordinates (37°14′28″N 83°18′5″W / 37.24111°N 83.30139°W).

They don't show anything there, either.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for some backstory here, a significant cleanup of these Kentucky geostubs was conducted by me and Uncle G a few years ago. The GNIS entry here is sourced to Rennick, but no reference to Little Beech in Rennick's Perry County document or his "Place Names Beginning in L" document. Nothing on topographic maps. I can turn up a creek by this name in another part of this state in the newspaper sources, but nothing for a community. Rennick's annotated topo map is apparently where this comes from, as it has LITTLE BEECH N. written in as marginalia with an arrow pointing to a point with nothing there. I don't know what this is. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brows Defeat, Kentucky for a similar case. In almost every instance of GNIS pointing back to Rennick and the place not being noted in Rennick's main county documentation, the location has been almost impossible to even verify. Hog Farm _Talk 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hog Farm. This is our past experience, and this is what little we have to go on in Rennick, and it's an exactly analogous situation to that prior discussion. I've just double-checked the manuscripts, including "B" just in case it was filed under "Beech". It isn't. And it isn't in the book. Or in Rennick's post offices of Perry county mnauscript.
I can only add that in many cases Kentucky is best discussed, as Rennick does xyrself (and as Hodge 1918 does too), in terms of its river system and all of the post offices and whatnot along it. I did this for one county, Rennick and other sources in hand, where we have articles following the river system and the post offices that were dotted along them in various places over the years. Witness Goose Creek (Oneida, Kentucky), for one example. Perry County needs all of this GNIS mess refactoring in the same way.
Little Beech Fork of the Big Beech Fork of the Willard Fork of the North Fork of the Kentucky river was the site of coal mines by Elijah and Abijah Hoskins (Hodge 1918, p. 229). That is what the mining was. I don't have the time to refactor this now, but I'd be looking to refactor this somehow into the Willard Fork, or perhaps even as finely grained as Big Beech Fork, depending from what reading Rennick and stuff like Hodge made the most sense, if I were doing it.
Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hodge, James Michael (1918). "Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties". Reports of the Kentucky Geological Survey 1912–1918. 4. 3. Frankfort, Kentucky. (Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties at the Internet Archive)
Delete if I am understanding the references from Uncle G this is the name of a watercourse by which there was a coal mine and not, as far as anyone can tell, a populated place. Therefore the article on a populated place should be deleted, without prejudice to recreation as an article about the water feature or coal mine at a later date. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left this until last because I think that this one involves going as high up the hierarchy as an outright North Fork Kentucky River article, which we actually had in 2004, and working down from there with sub-articles as necessary. We might get an actual Willard Creek out of it, to which this should redirect if that is the case, but I'm not sure yet. Otherwise this should redirect to North Fork Kentucky River which is where the minor tributaries that don't get standalone articles will be. Rennick doesn't seem to have enough for a standalone Willard Creek, now that I've gone over Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) and Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) and Trace Fork (AfD discussion), although from the number of tributaries alone Troublesome Creek (North Fork Kentucky River) is definitely standalone. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2023 (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.