Beck, Oklahoma : Reywas92 Talk 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Map with Beck on it http://www.mygenealogyhound.com/maps/oklahoma-maps/ok-mcintosh-county-oklahoma-1922-map.html# Keep until further evidence is provided that it wasn’t a town at all.  DannonCool ( talk ) 22:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have just provided that evidence.   There's not even a dot for Beck on that rubbish small scale map.   It's labelling a quadrangle, like the other all-uppercase names are.   Your only other sources are a GNIS regurgitator that explicitly says that it doesn't know anything and has unreliable sources on that very page and a WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, for all that the world knows.   This isn't in either of the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, moreover.   How can you read a WWW page that says that it is unreliable and doesn't know anything and then use it as a source?  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The upper-case names are not labelling quadrangles, several of them are in fact overlapping on several quadrangles.  Chaotıċ Enby ( t · c ) 02:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - We don't keep until somebody proves a place doesn't exist.  We don't create articles until substantial, reliable sources prove that it does .  Fails GNG for lack of sources.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see Lists of ghost towns in the United States .  Also, please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns .  Wikipedia does indeed have articles about towns that don't exist, but once upon a time did.  Lists that show hundreds of ghost towns in a state, and also stand-alone articles for ghost towns on the lists.  It is not a requirement for a stand-alone article on a ghost town to also be on a list, but it helps.  Beck is on the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma - and it is appropriate to have a stand-alone article on ghost towns like Beck.  I have added the project banner for WikiProject Ghost towns to the talk page.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So your argument is that since the same editor who wrote this article also added it to a list article, sourced to that very same WWW site where random people can sumbit (using the handy link provided) made up ghost towns, we should keep it.   That's not really putting reliable sourcing into practice.   If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them.   That's because there never has been any such town.   As I said above: it's a survey rectangle.  Uncle G ( talk ) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not add the ghost town to the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma article.  DannonCool ( talk ) 18:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apoplogize.   That was a mis-reading of the edit history on my part.  Uncle G ( talk ) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  It’s completely fine it was just a simple misunderstanding.  DannonCool ( talk ) 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's clear that part up.   Beck was added in 2007 by IvoShandor ( talk · contribs ).  Uncle G Have you been there?  That would be the ultimate proof of your assertion that this does not exist.  I've been editing on Wikipedia over 15 years, and have learned that any editor who accuses others of fabricating content, needs to verify their own accusations.  You keep saying nothing is there.   How do you know this?   In reply to your comment, "If you'd actually checked some sources, you'd have found that there's no Beck ghost town in them.  That's because there never has been any such town."  NEVER been there?   Never, ever?  What is YOUR source?  Quite frankly, I'd find it rather odd that sources would claim something doesn't exist.   How would they happen to be commenting on something that doesn't exist?  — Maile ( talk ) 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already said twice now that the sources do not comment on this.   Because, to spell it out yet again, there are no sources claiming that this exists.   There's a self-submission WWW site that is not a reliable source for that very reason, and nothing else .   You have the burden of proof exactly backwards.   I don't have to perform personal investigation in violation of our no original research policy.  You have to provide a source demonstrating your claim.   And since I know that this is a township survey rectangle and not a town, from the very map presented even, I can confidently state that you won't be able to do so.   I mentioned that you'll have no joy with the Ghost Towns or Place Names books, above, but feel free to actually put the legwork in and look at them yourself.   You've evidently made zero attempt to check out sources, otherwise you wouldn't be making such addled arguments as "please see the list articles" or "what is YOUR source?" for a statement that something is not in sources.   The rest of the world doesn't have to prove this negative.  You , Maile66 have the burden of actually putting the effort in and proving a positive.   Show us the page number in the Ghost Towns book.   It will be a non-existent ghost page number between Avery and Beer City.  Uncle G ( talk ) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t think the Morris book has all of the ghost towns that exist in Oklahoma in them.  The book even has Talala in it.  Talala is definitely very alive.  The town has 200 people.  I’m just saying the book may not have captured all of the towns or be accurate in some parts.  Nothing can be fully accurate or precise.  I have the physical copy of the book and although Beck is not in there, he may have not meant to not add towns.  He might’ve never heard of Beck.  Bethel, Grant County is a different story.  If I did a little more research, I would’ve came to the conclusion the town was a post office.  Not a ghost town.  That’s wrong on my behalf.  Also, “ghosttowns.com” seemed reliable at first due the fact that everyone was using it in the List of ghost towns in Oklahoma page.  If anything, we need to double down on our research and find other sources besides that very unreliable, user-submitted website.  DannonCool ( talk ) 21:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maile66, you're asking us to prove a negative.   That's impossible and it isn't how Wikipedia works.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nooooo.   The editor above has declared that no such ghost town exists in the area stated.    I'm asking him what he bases his comment on.  He's been very firm that there is absolutely nothing there.   The comment indicates he has information to backup his assertion.   I'm just asking what that is.  Let's say, for instance, that someone lists a town name Jerico in some state.   You tell me no such town exists in that state.   Wouldn't you need to have knowledge of that state to tell me Jerico does not exist there?  — Maile ( talk ) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- WeirdNAnnoyed is absolutely correct.  Until substantial, secondary sources exist, and article can not exist in mainspace.  There is no requirement for anyone to "prove" that something does not exist, even if it were logically possible (which, again as WnA points out, it's NOT).  Anyone supporting the article's continued existence needs to provide good RS (see WP:THREE for a good essay on that).  Until that happens, the only possible policy-based decision is deletion.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Last1in, GNG requires sourcing (to the standard, level of coverage, and numerousness outlined in our P&G's) to be able to retain the article.  It is not up to people advocating delete to prove that something doesn't exist, as  a) proving a negative is difficult if not impossible, but more importantly  b) that isn't the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia.  Daniel ( talk ) 00:17, 24 December 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.

Discussion outcome: delete