Mimsville, Georgia : cited to databases.  ltb d l ( talk ) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state) .  ltb d l ( talk ) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet more GNIS-import fake ghost-townery.   The contemporary USPS directory has this as a post office in Baker, and Brimley reporting things near to the post office in 1910, which I suspect people are going to use for the usual fallacious "near XYZ" argument, doesn't magically make it more than a post office.   Furthermore if USGS Water-Supply Paper 339 supported this being a town or a village, it would actually say that as it does for Newton and Elmodel in Baker, rather than more "near Mimmsville".  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What fresh hell is this?  https://www.hometownapparel.com/towns/georgia/mimsville/mimsville-georgia-classic-established-mens-cotton-tshirt/black/915912/A1? path=29821_31227_127598&ink=WT Looks like GNIS gets printed on Tshirts now.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete after making sure the community is listed on county page I already know that rural Georgia is not sufficiently covered by newspapers.  So I cannot rely on that source.  The Atlanta paper mentions it as a community a few times.   This is the best mention, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-savannah-morning-news-mimsville/140827964/ , it establishes the existence of a named community prior to the post office.  This website lists it as a community.  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baker_County%2C_Georgia .  I feel like I've heard of it.  But it doesn't have enough reliable sources to merit an article.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Baker County, Georgia .  This appears to be another post village (but could be a poorly-attested town, per James.folsom), with some relevance to the history of the surrounding rural area (best described in the Baker County article), but there's no clear evidence for notability in its own right.  Jbt89 ( talk ) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm getting a lot of hits regarding different recorded specimens there.  A list of Yale graduates said George King moved to a farm near there and began collecting reptiles, so perhaps that explains it.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete I see no reason to point this probably-just-a-post-office to the county article.  It's not a notable place, and we don't have a definite character for it.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Mangoe.   I really don't understand why people want to merge/redirect these stubs, when the merge target has no mention of the subject (or mentions it only as an item in a bulleted list, as is the case for Baker County, Georgia ), nor any relevant section where the information would fit without being WP:UNDUE ...particularly when all the information we have about this place is from trivial passing mentions in databases and gazetteer tables.   That just introduces confusion and irrelevant clutter.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The merge redirect doesn't have to be that way.  I was just for making sure that this vague community is listed on the county page and redirect the article there.  I agree that GNIS crap should be dumped on the floor.  I believe some editors also place value on all contributions no matter how useless they were.  In those cases redirect at least preserves those.  So, I think that's why you get that also.  Another thing that's on my mind is many of these counties are not much more than stubs anyway, so if the even lesser known communities get listed there, then somebody could add a little info about each minor community.  I've always thought it would be good to just list the unincorporated communities that actually exist but have few good sources on the county page with a little paragraph about.  That just makes a better article in general, and I don't understand why so many editors prefer they have their own articles.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete