Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah Junction, California


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hallelujah Junction, California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's clear from every source I've found that this was never more than a road junction. The notability issue is that it is name-dropped a lot: by weird place names people, by roadside oddities people (there was a tree heavily decorated with shoes nearby which was removed a few years back), by rockhounds (a distinctive smoky amethyst is collected nearby), by mining stats people (there was a pumice mine to the south: you can still see the hole, which is listed separately on GNIS), and by the composer John Adams, who supposedly has a house in the general vicinity and who named both a piano piece and his autobiography after the place. All that was ever at the spot itself, as best I can determine, was the intersection and a store, both of which have been heavily modified over the years. I'm not terribly convinced by the origin story for the name, which sounds frankly like fakelore, especially since neither Fairchild's county history nor Gudde's gazetteers appear to mention the place. So, is the place notable because it's mentioned a lot? Right now, an accurate article would say "Hallelujah Junction is a highway intersection where there is a gas station and store," and then go on to list some of these other things. I'm not fully convinced this is enough, especially since the one reference which would unquestionably remain is the John Adams material, which is at best two sentences in his article. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I have improved the article with history and this source: https://www.tipurdy.org/hallelujah-junction-2/ A place that had an airport seems important; the fact it was obliterated for a freeway is merely interesting. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "tipurdy.org" source presented above, while interesting, doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source that might confer notability onto this subject—it looks like someone's blog that doesn't necessarily have editorial oversight beyond the judgment of its sole author. Even if it was reliable, I feel that we would need additional evidence of signficiant coverage beyond that single paragraph about the subject (the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NGEO). As it stands, I am inclined to agree with the nominator that this appears to have been a WP:MILL road junction. The song Hallelujah Junction by John Adams is interesting, and there is some coverage available about the song, but the road junction does not automatically inherit notability from the song—we would need evidence of independent coverage about the junction specifically. The name of this place appears to be ambiguous with a Wildlife Area also in California. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was just a road junction which doesn't lend itself to notability. On top of this, it is a former road junction. The lack of depth of notable, reliable sources is another nail in the coffin for this article.Knox490 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had some time to take a closer look at this subject today, and I wonder if another angle to this might be WP:GEOLAND, which provides near-inherent notability to Populated, legally recognized places. This entry in the Geographic Names Information System seems to categorize this as a "populated place", and there are some news articles that describe it as some kind of landmark or community, e.g. . I'm not sure if this is the kind of place that enjoys automatic notability per GEOLAND. Mz7 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Nothing is inherently notable. Per WP:NGEO, "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A presumption of notability can be (and often is) challenged. The General Notability Guidelines calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't believe this subject meets this standard. Glendoremus (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep A generic information article sourced with enough references. D My Son  06:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.