Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Non-existent unincorporated places

There are many mass-created stubs of non-existent or very small non-notable places based only on a context-free listing in a geographic names database. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willowbrook Estates, Indiana didn't get much attention but closed as redirect, and I have also started a discussion of the similar Midway Corners, Indiana. These places are not "legally recognized", being unincorporated, and the lack of any search results indicates they do not exist. They apparently existed at some point in the past which got the name in a database, but the negligent writing of the articles as "Midway Corners is an unincorporated community..." has no basis. The coordinates point to about a dozen rural homes so even if this name was once used in the past it is clearly not a notable place. There are scores of articles like this one and comment on moving forward regarding these is appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Database is a primary source. Per our policies (WP:PRIMARY, I bellieve) an article cannot be based solely on primary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you to go ahead and for the likes do like this (I copied the ref from the killed page, of course, after checking if it is still valid). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have also brought up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Hollow, Indiana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeast Manor, Indiana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Woods, Indiana, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana. These are routine subdivisions of homes (sometimes neighborhoods within an incorporated city), small unincorporated places, or perhaps not even a place at all. Can we establish that listing in the GNIS or an atlas of place names does not establish notability? They could be mentioned in the township or county articles but there is no evidence of notability for their own articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Change to 'Sources' section

Purpose: to address modern technologies for data storage

From:

This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.

to:

This guideline specifically excludes maps, databases, census tables, and other aggregate information sources from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.

Comments? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess this is in response to my thread above. It ought to be pretty obvious that "significant coverage" in GNG does not include database entries but apparently not to the people who believe in "inherent notability", and I would support this change. But this article's "legally recognized" line should also be clarified since people think appearing in a database of names or in a government document is legal recognition, resulting in automatic notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana is the example of this misunderstanding despite the complete lack of any substance to any of the "sources" thrown at it. Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

GEOLAND is self-contradictory – what is a "legally recognized place"?

Brent Woods, Indiana (see map) is a clearly a neighborhood, a subdivision, a housing development – whatever you call it, it's a dozen or so homes on a Brentwood Drive that has given itself a name; I cannot find any source of substance providing further information about it. Contrary to the mass-created article it is within incorporated Shelbyville, Indiana (map). Yet people are claiming that this guideline's line "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." does not apply because it is not a "Populated place without legal recognition".

So what is the recognition here? The US Geological Society has a database of place names; anything that has appeared on a map has an entry in the database: towns, neighborhoods, subdivisions, parks, buildings, natural features etc. This is that map in this case. Rolling Ridge, Indiana [1] is one other neighborhood/subdivision/housing development on it. Many other resources such as Google Maps and weather and real estate websites use the coordinates from that database to generate search results. Although this would fall under Sources "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject," people are saying that because government maps are "legal", and presence on the map and database is "recognition", there is "inherent notability" of the neighborhood, and this guideline's and the GNG's requirement for non-trivial coverage in multiple sources – or at least the exclusion of maps – does not apply. This creates a contradiction in the guideline for which bullet point does apply.

Therefore I would suggest clarifying that "Populated, legally recognized places" have status such as a local government or council, accepted boundaries or statistics, or other civil record. "Legally recognized places" that may have a lower threshold than GNG for when notability is presumed should be defined to exclude neighborhoods, subdivisions, or streets mentioned in "Populated places without legal recognition". I certainly welcome articles about unincorporated communities, but I an wary of the use of using only names on a map or in a database without context or substance to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this “clarification” or a proposed rule change? Can you show established consensus for that interpretation? postdlf (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment on the original question, different national governments afford legal recognition in different ways. In Canada, for example, Statistics Canada maintains a standard of "designated places" that is more detailed than the set of places with local governments, or local administrative areas, or even areas with available statistics. I would assume that, because they are legally designated under the Ststistics Act, all such locations would, if currently populated, fall under the category of "Populated places with legal recognition". Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm struggling with a similar issue, as I noted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes recently. What I queried there was: :I've been fixing problems relating to the articles listed at List of villages in Mawal taluka. Among the problems was that the list stated there were 181 villages but the 2011 census records 187. Some of the 187 were uninhabited at that time and the census shows them as such.
  I've just created Nandgaon, Mawal but, being uninhabited, it may fall foul of the inherent notability deemed to apply to populated places. I'm guessing that at some point it must have been inhabited, otherwise it would not be considered a village. These uninhabited places have defined boundaries and remain administrative units. Any thoughts?

I have had no response and a somewhat related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_21#Category:Uninhabited_villages has become messy because I didn't explain myself very well. I don't want to forum shop this but it affects a lot of potential articles, probably in the thousands. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Without looking into the related discussion, I would simply note that, on the one hand, formerly inhabited places don't cease to be Notable when they become uninhabited. On the other hand, though, there is no presumptive notability for officially-recognized unpopulated places unless it can be demonstrated that they were formerly populated, AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

UK Grade II Listed buildings

Is it really the intention of the policy statement "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available, are presumed to be notable" to declare half a million Grade II listed buildings to merit an article, even if there are few or no details in reliable sources other than the fact of such listing? Kevin McE (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you read what you cited? and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available. I guess not. Otherwise you would have fixed this outrageous grammo. (Fixed) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Goodness no. That would be an absurdly broad interpretation to include 500,000 buildings by default regardless of independent coverage. The US NRHP has only 80,000 individually listed sites for a much larger (albeit younger) country. (Please don't tell me someone has been mass-creating stubs of these...) Reywas92^Talk 21:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Also to the above, I would assume "artificial geographic features" would be things like the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, and other things that actually affect geography, rather historically important buildings? --Masem (t) 22:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are y'all in panic? The guideline says "NO", see the colored quote above (grammo fixed). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't, given the Historic England listing usually gives fairly substantial information. This is more than "simple statistics". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does. If there is substantial information, then WP:GNG, kicks in which, per our policies, trumps all topical notability guidelines. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Buildings affect geography big time. In any case, see "Scope" section. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Scope covers (or more accurately, eliminates) historical buildings that are implied by NRHP or the like that they don't fall under thing. But I would think that obvious mega-structures like the Hoover Dam or Panama Canal, specifically engineered to alter geography, would be "artificial geographical features". --Masem (t) 00:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This section has always been taken to cover buildings of all sorts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the guideline lists "Artificial geographical features" separately from "private buildings", means that buildings do not fall under "artificial geographic features". --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It also lists "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams)" separately. So what do you think it covers exactly? What it's saying is that even if these structures and buildings are not listed as cultural heritage then they may still be notable for other reasons. And that's the way AfDs have always interpreted it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My take on this is that we should use discretion. The average normal-sized house, cottage or shop is probably not notable even if it's listed. However, large houses and stores, public buildings, clubs, churches, schools, pubs, farms, etc, should be considered notable even if they are only Grade II listed. If a street contains a lot of listed houses or shops then we should have an article on the street. It's all about discretion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly so. Even a straw cottage is notable, if it satisfies WP:GNG, e.g., if the first President of Zamunda was born there and every year it is a center of Zamunda National Pilgrimage. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but we're only talking here about notability deriving from historical listing. Anything can be notable if it satisfies GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I would like to address this repeated concern some have regarding "to declare half a million Grade II listed buildings to merit an article". 1)- This does not neutrally start a discussion on fact finding, 2)- This is an encyclopedia that as I have read does not have limited space, 3)- while "other stuff" is not a good argument, if there was a project started to record the nationally listed historical buildings in the UK it would not be a bad thing, certainly as noble and with as much historical significance as ships or lighthouses, and from my point of view far more encyclopedic than listing all Playboy bunny's. However, I am not advocating this as I would like to find more sourcing than one list and this has been evident in my discussions like at Talk:Derwent House.

I always advocate for sourcing, am not a fan of stubby stubs or dictionary entries, and my discussion, as well as User:Doncram and the closer that allowed a reprieve is that lacking such sources that a suitable place be found for merging. User:Pontificalibus brought up valid points on "grade II buildings" in the UK. The national listing is locally run and more or less is a type of zoning ordinance and Wikipedia has not typically listed grade II buildings. At this point I can see why but I am "across the pond" and have concerns that I have just not found the historical writing on the buildings (or areas) like in the U.S. on the NRHP buildings. There may not be any secondary sourcing (geeze that seems dubious and I have found some) that is important. The end result is still the preservation of history and recording historically significant buildings. If sourcing is scarce then a central location like "Chiselhurst Conservation Area" (in the case that led to this) is not advocating for a half a million articles that is more like 350,000 but I haven't looked just used some calculations on shown percentages.

Does there need to be clarification on two points that would lead to consistency on the criterion? The Derwent House was built in 1899 and things like the bay windows are still used in buildings to this day so it is among those that has contributed to our architectural history in the United States. It is not a "straw cottage" and I am still looking for sources but it seems to me that an argument against recording these buildings somewhere, especially if they were designed or built by a notable architect or builder, would be one a developer wanting to build a new mall would make. The conservation areas, used as zoning tools or not, are nationally listed and they carry the weight of statues ensuring protection, seems strange. The same could be said for individual buildings but scarce sourcing would likely end up with perennial discussions which I do not like.

A discussion here should revolve around the apparently unclear criterion, should there be something directly related to the UK, or can the wording be tweaked to be more clear and this would likely involve a RFC. To me it would seem that "Buildings and objects" as well as "Roadways" should be a sub-heading under Artificial geographical features and this might even be uncontested. I would like to point out that the guideline appears to be clear in two places, "This page in a nutshell" and "Buildings and objects" that protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites, especially if officially assigned the status does give the presumption of notability. I get a twinge of pain every time I see an editor use the word "automatic" or try to equate it to meaning a presumption of notability. I declare that there is not one single hint in our policies and guidelines or our practice that there is intrinsic or inherent "automatic" notability allowing inclusion on Wikipedia. All other factors aside consensus still is a main determining factor.

If a building is considered an artificial geographic feature then any argument that the above twice mentioned protection status might somehow not apply to buildings is comical at best and might even be considered silly. If that is true then there is no confusion and UK buildings and conservation areas do not need separate mention. A discussion would need to be how we can "not" end up with "a half million" listings that might only have one source. Using the sourcing guidelines to try to find sourcing for the protected areas and then the allowable inclusion (from a national listing) would be a solution not trying to argue that, 1)- the guideline does not specifically mean "buildings", that UK protection is really just a zoning tool, or that OMG! we might have too many articles on Wikipedia. You guys figure it out as I am going to try to work on the sourcing aspect that is not related to this discussion. ---and now work calls. Otr500 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gologory

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Gologory. I'm having a hard time deciding if the sources are good enough to meet WP:GEOLAND. Let alone figure out which of the many possible transliterations of the name to use as a title. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

While the article may be improved, it certainly meets GEOLAND, having 600+ persons and two minor books published about it (may be found in the local history fans' blog listed. The title should be based on our standard uk: translit, i.e.: Holohory (village) notice the dab- the main article should be Holohory about the mountain range, which is vastly more notable, includeing natural monument site . BTW, it must be linked with uk:Гологори (село) (which has much more refs. Therefore I would suggest to accept the draft and let the normal editing proceed from this. (I will certainly chirp in). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to accept this, and call it Holohory. If somebody ever writes an article about the mountain range, they can rename this to Holohory (village) at that time, and provide the appropriate navigation aids (hatnote or WP:DAB page). Thanks for your help. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability for lakes

There has been an ongoing issue about whether Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) should be deleted at an AfD discussion (and other places, like ANI and user pages).

It's been a contentious discussion, which basically revolves around whether this article is notable, such as:

• Size (it's 92 acres)
• Protected status - it's a protected lake in Minnesota
• The number of sources
• It has basic statistical information, but a few additional points, too, like how it was named, etc.

This is what I see at WP:Notability (geographic features):

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

This is being interpreted differently and WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, etc. come up in discussions. Also with different interpretations.

Do you have guidance regarding what makes a lake notable, or specific comments about Bachelor Lake's notability?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

A relevant part of this discussion is that there is a List of lakes in Minnesota page, which has a row for Bachelor Lake. And, there are lakes listed in the Brown County, Minnesota article and {{Brown County, Minnesota}}–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Responses

• I've got a personal rough rule for this sort of thing, and it's not just for geographical features: if an article could be put into a few cells of an excel spreadsheet, it's better presented as a row in a table. That's the case for this article. Reyk _YO! 19:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• There are millions and millions of lakes in the world, many of which are named, many of which have etymology for that name or routine statistical (and often non-site-specific) content about the local geography, local watershed, elevation, and size ranking. Wikipedia does not need separate articles for the thousands of unremarkable lakes in Minnesota alone, much less millions of separate articles for each of these troughs of water in the world. This example could easily fit in a statewide list of lakes, or that could be split by region or county. What makes a lake notable? The same thing as what makes other things notable: people have published significant content about the subject in reliable sources. I'm all for preserving content, but short of significant coverage that content should not be on individual articles, especially in cases like this where there are multiple obvious places that is can be or already is provided. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on this Reywas92, there are millions. However the ones I consider notable fit into some criteria. As i pointed out in the Bachelor Lake AfD: Minnesota has criteria, whereby Levivich's fictional pool described below would not be considered a notable lake. Minnesota requires a lake be at least ten acres, so that excludes pools and ponds. The neighboring state of Wisconsin has zero criteria for lakes, so any pond can be called a lake. We have room to make an article for any notable lake, and include it in a cell. JMHO Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Minnesota does not define a lake by its size per its DNR, 10 acres is just an arbitrary cut-off so they can give a precise number close to their 10,000 lakes nickname. Crossing a state border should hardly affect notability, nor should size, big or small, nor technical definitions – just whether we have substantive coverage on it. Inclusion in tables is wholeheartedly welcome! Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• A few off-the-cuff thoughts:
  1. The sentence The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article should be rewritten to remove the reference to "the number of known sources". It doesn't matter how many sources there are, it matters how much information is in those sources. A lake that is the subject of two books all about the lake will be "more notable" than another lake that is the subject of 1,000 statistical databases that only briefly mention it.
  2. The guideline is really useless because of it boils down to these two phrases: ... information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist ... If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources ... Well, how much information beyond stats and coordinates? Why "known to exist" (as opposed to "available for us to use" or something like that)? And who is to judge whether "a Wikipedia article can be developed"? I can develop a Wikipedia article about the pool in my backyard; it doesn't make it notable. And if you say, "Well, only a Wikipedia article that is policy-compliant", that's circular, because we're trying to decide in this guideline what type of sourcing is policy-compliant. (GEOLAND is just as vague as GNG's "in depth" requirement. How in depth is in depth enough?)
  3. Do all lakes have to meet GNG, or does GEOLAND create an exception? This seems like a big open question, and likely controversial. My suggestion would be to just say, "named natural features must meet GNG to be notable", and leave it at that. In other words, I kind of don't see a need for GEOLAND to exist at all.
  4. If we do have to come up with "a rule" for lakes and other geographical features, I like the "if it fits on a table, don't have a stand-alone article" rule. – Levivich 22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I can develop a Wikipedia article about the pool in my backyard =- No you cannot: you ignored and important rule " developed using known sources" (a sloppy wording but in wp we understand that sources must be reliable) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I can develop an article about my pool using reliable sources. Not GNG-satisfying sources, of course, but RS-satisfying sources, yes. There are published, independent, accurate records documenting my pool's location, size, elevation, how many gallons of water it holds, what materials it's constructed from, when it was installed, who supplied the materials and performed the labor, who owns it, when it was inspected and by whom, and so forth. You'll even find it mentioned in some newspaper reports–which, of course, aren't about the pool itself but about things that happened at the pool, but that would be a classic example of a non-GNG RS. To put a finer point on it, there is also a bog behind my house. The bog has legal protection status (it is a protected wetland). There are environmental reports published by NPS, EPA, and my local state's environmental authorities. I can source the bog's location, size, elevation, wildlife, vegetation, and more; I can say it's listed as a threatened wetland and is legally protected by national and regional authorities. If the bog had a name, it'd be the exact same level of sourcing for Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) as for Levivich's bog (sure to become a blue link any day now). – Levivich 23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  No you cannot. You forgot about one more requirement: you cannot base an article exclusively on WP:PRIMARY sources. And yet another guideline: sources of local production usually do not count towards notability. And many more. We had this discussions during "establishment days", because this applies not only to your pool, but to Pizza Hut next door, your uncle Bob being local church choirmaster, your garage band, and what's not. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  This is also an absolute straw man, as neither the pool nor the bog are "named natural features." SportingFlyer T·C 04:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  If the bog had a name, it'd be the exact same level of sourcing for Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) as for Levivich's bog – Levivich 04:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes I agree, I couldn't do it without relying too much on primary sources. Of course, GEOLAND doesn't require secondary sources. :-) In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, articles are not actually required to have secondary sources, nor are article topics required to be supported by available secondary sources in order to be deemed notable. I have many times argued at AfD for the deletion of e.g., BLPs of athletes where the only sources available were statistics websites or game reports, and the articles are nevertheless kept. I'd be in favor of explicitly requiring secondary sourcing for GEOLAND (and everything else). Though I think V and NOR are already pretty clear about this, I'm not sure that there would be consensus for revising GEOLAND's language to require secondary sourcing if that were put to an RfC. Perhaps we'll see. – Levivich 04:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Do all lakes have to meet GNG, or does GEOLAND create an exception? - Y'all miss the major point of GEOLAND. The point is that for geofeatures, formally here is a HUGE number of reliable sources: maps, stats databases, etc. Hence the clause is added: information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. And you are right: it may be rephrased as "if it fits on a table, don't have a stand-alone article". In fact, the guideline says in its "Nutshell": It is advised to include identifiable minor geographic features within articles for larger features., but somehow this advise was lost from the guideline body since last time I took part in discussions here. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• The two most basic concepts of Wikipedia are notability and consensus. WP:GNG is our main proxy for notability - if something appears in approximately three independent secondary sources, it's generally notable. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we function like a gazetteer, though we're not a true gazetteer in the sense that every feature gets an article, or even a mention in a list, as gazetteers typically function more like dictionaries than encyclopaedias. What this means in practice though is that notability for geographic features is lower than our WP:GNG proxy - as long as there's more written about a feature than just statistics which could be derived from maps or gazetteers (see small streams or lakes in northern Quebec) there's a good chance the feature is notable enough for an article. I think the Bachelor Lake AfD shows the other half of the discussion as well, which is consensus - there's information on Bachelor Lake beyond mere statistics, but there's not heaps of information on Bachelor Lake, and whether the lake should have a stand-alone article is based on whether there's consensus there's enough information for an article. I sort of like the "can fit in a list cell" rule but still think the process is generally working. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much. There has been a lot of great input here. It has been suggested that the next step could be creating a WP:RFC to move this forward. So, if that makes sense generally, I will be preparing a draft for review based upon the input here. In the meantime, I will wait a bit to see if there's additional input on this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I respect SportingFlyer's thoughts here: we often get to the right result through consensus and notability for geographic features is lower than our WP:GNG. The guidelines worked in the case of the lake mentioned (although I tend to believe two good sources is enough if they are solid). But I also see no need to condense everything into cells and redirect everything. As SportingFlyer has stated, the process is working. What you saw at the Bachelor Lake AfD is many long time adversaries clashing. There were two BADNAC of the AfD, one ANI, and walls of text. There was also edit warring that even carried over to this morning and now more hand wringing here. I think this lake was an aberration. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have a general notability guideline and a specific one. There was no consensus for further fragmentation in the case of rivers above and so it makes no sense to now propose one for another type of body of water. The fine distinctions between lakes, ponds, meres, lochs, tarns, &c. are many and varied. Trying to make precise formal rules for everything is not our business and tends not to work because the world just isn't that simple and so there always complications and corner cases. See WP:CREEP, WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. I hear the points that the guidelines don't need to be changed, but I think at the very least it would help to have an essay. For instance, should WP:GNG take precedence over lakes being protected. I am going to summarize this at Draft:Notability (lakes).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I am  Done with the draft, which I purposefully kept brief. If I have missed an important point, though, in the process --> please feel free to edit the Draft:Notability (lakes). I think this could apply to rivers or other geographic features. It's much similar than the attempt to write notability guidelines for rivers earlier, for instance.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together, Carole. It looks like a good summary of the discussion so far. Where do you see us going from here? – Levivich 03:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I am kind of hoping to have input on that. Some say that there's enough already in the guidelines. But, I think if it was clear there wouldn't have been so much debate. If it's not to tweak to the WP:Notability (geographic features), it could be an essay. What do you think? And, do you think it could apply to other geographic features, like rivers?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: My two cents is that yes, there should be an RfC, specifically to change the language of GEOLAND to something clearer that will help article creators and AfD !voters determine notability. A better yardstick, or a better rule of thumb, than what is currently written. I'm not sure exactly how the language should be changed (yet), but I think workshopping some language might be fruitful. I'm not really seeing the reason to separate, e.g., lakes from rivers. I think if we looked at GEOLAND#4 (and btw one of the changes I would suggest is changing the bullets to a numbered list), we could probably come up with some language that is clearer than "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" but that would also apply equally to any named natural feature. – Levivich 04:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Ok. I have added two sections to the draft: the current GEOLAND language and a section to start working on the new language for GEOLAND. Any input is appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! I see we already have a couple draft sections to digest. Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. – Levivich 04:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Satellite images

In the discussion of whether a geographic location is notable, I've seen a few editors state that they used Google Maps to look at a satellite image of the location and because there is nothing there, then the page should be deleted, perhaps because there never was a populated place there. Does this qualify as WP:OR? A secondary issue is that while I agree that a satellite image that shows nothing today means that there probably was no populated place or traces of a populated place at the time the image was taken. However, a satellite image that shows nothing today does not mean that there never was a populated place. Comments? Cxbrx (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, to some extent it is original research. But then again, the burden for verifiable content is on those who want to include it. There are *widely* disparate definitions of "populated place" and not all of them are necessarily encyclopedic. The US geographic survey may well have labelled a small grouping of buildings in a remote area as a populated place and given it a name. That doesn't necessarily mean the place is notable. older ≠ wiser 22:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it's nearly impossible to prove that a place has never been populated, editors who nominate a "populated place" for deletion have to demonstrate that they've looked everywhere and couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. This type of super-thorough WP:BEFORE search often involves a certain amount of original research; although satellite views, personal websites and online forums can't be used as references or to establish notability, they can provide clues that point the way to RS coverage. "Nothing in the satellite view" shows that the editor looked and didn't find anything like a railroad, mine, landing strip or townsite that could be useful in the search for sources. I would also echo Bkonrad's point that the burden to verify the existence of a place should be on the editors wishing to include it; "maybe there used to be something there and now it's gone" is a common-but fallacious "keep" argument. –dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Satellite is useful tool when you need confirmation there is nothing there or something there. IMO using satellite imagery would be WP:OR if the situation was there was a populated area that just seemed sort of small, so it was a judgement call whether or not it was not notable and you were using the satellite to count houses and roads. But, really I think people are using it for all these articles for Old West railroad junctions that were created as "populated places" even though there is not a single structure anywhere and no evidence it existed. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Junction, Arizona which spawned this thread. The satellite shows there's not a damn thing anywhere around. And you can check the date on the bottom as to when the image was taken (2020 in this case). So unless they've built an entire town in the last five minutes or it's populated by troglodytes, the satellite data is a tool to confirm it doesn't exist. It there was a town there at some point, then it should be a ghost town, and structures would still be there, and it would probably be notable as a ghost town. But it's hard to find notability in a town that was completely razed, when there is nothing written about it giving it notability (such as if it were an old fort that was destroyed in a skirmish or a gold rush town that was once a major junction, or something). It just doesn't meet the qualifications. PS Thanks for starting this discussion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that satellite images are valid tool to challenge the notability (in absence of WP:GNG which discuss the subject in depth). It dos not qualify as original research because these images are not used as references in the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks all. I was just curious if this crossed the line in to WP:OR or not. FWIW - List of ghost towns in Nevada defines a Barren Site as "*Site is no longer in existence, *Site has been destroyed, covered with water, or has reverted to empty land, *May have at most a few difficult-to-find foundations/footings" For example, Rawhide, Nevada is now the location of a large open pit mine. Today's satellite imagery for locations like Johntown, Nevada give no indication that there was a populated place there. Cxbrx (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • In the latter case, there is plenty enough documentary evidence; if there is an issue it is where the coordinates given in the article come from. We have also had cases where there were errors in the coordinates given in GNIS or Geonames which were revealed by looking at aerial photos. Mangoe (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place?

WP:GEOLAND says: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable."

In looking at the archives, it seems like there are many different opinions about the definition of "Populated, legally recognized places". I've been using the presence/absence of a Post Office to help me determine whether a location in the United States is a legally recognized place. My rationale in part is that to have a Post Office requires U.S. federal government recognition that the place is sufficiently important enough to pay to have a Post Office and staff. The Post Office question has been coming up recently in our cleanup of Arizona places, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araby, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiricahua, Arizona. I'm grateful to Mangoe for their efforts here in identifying a number of clearly non-notable locations. Mainly, I'd like get a sense of what the consensus is (if any) about whether having a Post Office satisfies Populated, legally recognized places. Comments are most welcome. Cxbrx (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says "cities and villages...are generally kept", and this has tended to override the vague "legally recognized." The interpretation has typically been though that if the US Post Office has a location with that name or any national census counts it as a separate place for counting inhabitants, it has a minimal degree of acknowledgement that there is or was enough of a population for recognition. You're right to note that the source for Blaisdell just says it was a station – a lot of these POs are from the time before cars so they were spread a lot more widely in sparsely populated areas! I wonder if anyone has info about how the USPO decided where to open new offices. I did find another source for Blaisdell that says a handful of people lived there better than the names book though. I do wish people wouldn't so haphazardly create microstubs of "Smallsville is a place in a state. It was named after Bill Small." They'd get a lot more eyes than one every other day if mentioned as part of the history of the railroad or region – write an article when it's demonstrated there is coverage for an independent page, not simply existence (or not) = notability = article mandate. Reywas92^Talk 06:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging such stubs to railway articles would be a good idea @Reywas92:, but historic US railroad articles seem to be in rather poor shape. In the UK all new and disused rail routes seem to have articles such as Mangotsfield and Bath branch line with nice templates listing all their stations. I was surprised that even major railroad article in the US don't seem amenable to accommodating redirects from minor stations.----Pontificalibus 07:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe the wikiproject has guidance on that, but unfortunately I'm not interested enough in railroad stations to do it myself, short of a basic Southern Pacific Railroad stations or something to consolidate these historical sidings with the sources we've found previously. Reywas92^Talk 07:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is the presence of a USPO might strongly indicate a place is likely to be a "populated, legally recognized place", but it is obviously not a catch-all - it's conceivable that a PO might be set up somewhere where people work or travel through but don't live. On the other hand the absence of one is obviously not grounds to suggest we shouldn't have an article on a place. Many ghost towns for example had their heyday before the railroad and telegraph arrived, and there may be all sorts of other reasons why relatively large populated places lacked a PO. For example this list shows several places designated in the census lacking a PO in 1940 such as Tubac which had a population of 500.----Pontificalibus 07:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The presenting problem in all of this is that we have many places recorded where essentially all the article says is that is a "populated" place, and where the article says little if anything other than the location and elevation as recorded in GNIS or GEONames. And we have taken the position that this isn't good enough for notability, so other investigations have to be undertaken. Having census numbers is, I think we all agree, sufficient proof of some level of actual populated locale with a name. What I've found in many areas, though, is that the place in question is a ranch or especially a point on the railroad, most often the location of a passing siding or junction. These all were given names by the railroad because they needed to be referred to by name, but it's common enough that the spot is isolated and had nothing else around it. What we have found, however, is that a number of these isolated stations contained post offices. There also was apparently a period in the late 1880s where the postal service would have a "post office" apparently at some farmer's house (see Monroe, Kansas for an example). It's really the same problem as with railroad names: it establishes a placename, but it doesn't say what that place is— unless we want to say that post offices themselves are notable, just as some have argued that every point on the railroad is notable, which at least for the USA we have tended to reject. What seems have happened in the days before Rural Free Delivery is that post offices had to be thick enough on the ground for people to be able to go to them to pick up their mail, so there were post offices in a lot of places where there were no towns, and before zip codes, each of these offices had to have a "town" name. If we want to say that every place that has a post office is notable, well then, we need to say what sort of place that is, and if we think that place would not be notable otherwise by virtue of what it is, then I would tend to say that a psot office doesn't push it over the line to notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sometimes a post office can provide a clue about population and legal recognition of a place but it's not always clear cut, especially in rural areas. The site of a post office and the community it serves are not always the same thing. An example of this came up in the recent deletion discussion for Sunshine, Arizona; the post office was located at a railroad siding called Sunshine but the post office was named Meteor; by postal regulation, the name of the post office should generally indicate the primary community being served. In this case however there was no town/village/hamlet named Meteor and it was likely set up to serve an entirely rural population. This sort of thing probably happened a lot back in the days when most mail was transported by rail. A post office would be placed at a railway stop to conveniently send/receive the mail but the customers served could be entirely rural or located in communities some distance away. Glendoremus (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone who commented. It seems like there is no hard and fast rule concerning Post Offices and that there are many exceptions. It seems that it is probably not sufficient if the only evidence of notability is that there was a Post Office. Cxbrx (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)