Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havana, Oregon


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Havana, Oregon

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * aka Havana Station
 * aka Havana Station

PROD was removed without comment, but this place is obviously non-notable and never was. Sources consist of GNIS (not sufficient for notability) and a trivial one-word mention in a 1913 magazine ("The first section extends from Pendleton to Havana station, a distance of eight miles"). Satellite view shows empty farmland; topo maps from the 1930s suggest this was never a community but rather a rail siding possibly with a flag stop for local farmers. That is a far cry from a "community" and the article thus fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * del -no reliable evidence that there is such an uninco community.- Altenmann >talk 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: for anyone who isn't sure why GNIS data is considered unreliable (like me before I googled it), see Reliability_of_GNIS_data Mrfoogles (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless anyone can find at least one reliable source describing this: in an ideal world there would be another source that this wasn't a town but the fact that no one can find any mentions of it outside of GNIS means that it fails GNG, and is impossible to write an article about, anyway. Topo map review is also convincing, so probably not an actual place. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete The PROD had to be successful. Agletarang (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Did User:Valfontis have an actual reason for the prod removal on a page that is blatantly false? Reywas92Talk 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Blatantly false? Huh. What follows is a personal rant and not based on Wikipedia policy. Don't come at me, this is an essay, not an argument to keep Havana, Oregon. I haven't even looked at it yet to see if there's anything I can do. I pulled the Prod because WP:WHOAHOLDUPTHEREPARDNER. It's all I had time to do.
 * Look, I'm thisclose to retiring because of the deletionist bent in the Wikipedia geography area lately. Researching and upgrading articles where the info is not easily accessible takes hours (newspaper archives, books, etc.). I just finished a year of a 2nd bachelor's degree in geography. I'm busy, I'm experienced, and I'm tired. I'm not a hack. It's possible I misjudged the importance of this place, which was likely one I wrote due to it appearing on a "funny place name" list (likely included because: "oh look it's like Havana, Cuba, neat!"). Which doesn't mean it's not also possibly notable.
 * I'm thinking of ways to include geography information in the encyclopedia that isn't available anywhere else, that isn't a "random compilation" of information, etc. (Possibly upmerge to an article about the railroad, separate article on geography of Foo, etc. [note that IMO upmerging to a county article is silly]--also note that I don't know if this is "allowed", I am just brainstorming.) I had planned to work today on Glenwood, Lane County, Oregon as that place is actually notable, so I'm going to do that. I have a track record for writing well-sourced articles. (GNIS used to be considered an OK source BTW, I accept that it's not anymore.) Which is meaningless, I understand that, but I swear the tone of these geography discussions have become really nasty. I'll either get around to improving this article, or not, but this ain't no Blue Bucket Cow Camp, Oregon. I'm more into building up than tearing down. YMMV. WP:AGF, y'all. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, I took a look. I likely created the article because it is linked here: Oregon Route 335. What follows is a tangential discussion, not a !vote: As part of a named highway, if we are still in the business of doing a service to our readers, one might idly wonder what Havana, Oregon is all about, and want to click through and read about it. At least I think like that, and like having info at my fingertips. That said, there was an irritating propensity by the road folks to insist on redlinking to places that are not places, and this may have been an attempt to "place-ify" a redlink. I made a vow to back off from road articles for this reason and the fact I found it impossible to unlink things in the templates. I understand many of the road folks have left, so maybe it will be easier? So. I need to do more research on the individual notabilty, but it's *possible* including the info on Havana in the article about the named highway might not be the worst idea. Valfontis (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings were intended. As a geography nerd myself, I appreciate the work that you're doing, and if there are reliable sources about this place then we can absolutely have an article.  But I think the bar for article creation needs to be higher than "there is a redlink".  Sure, the Oregon 335 article says "community", but with a little research it's obvious this isn't a community and never was.  The USGS topo maps  show a rail siding in 1935, and a rail siding with a gravel pit in 1966, the nearest building being nearly a mile away.  Today the railroad is gone; Havana is just a bend in the road.  Thus, saying Havana "is" an "unincorporated community" is false on both fronts.  Havana "is"n't anything outside GNIS.  If sources appear then we can re-create the article, but absent such sources, we have nothing to say and we're propagating likely false information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "higher than 'there is a redlink'". Yes, this is obvious to me, sorry if it didn't come across to you that way. I don't start articles if I don't think there's something there. See my next comment. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I am presenting this not as a !vote, just for further information. It's really hard to search up something that has the same name as the situation in the Spanish-American War this station was likely named for, and a popular cigar. However, here are over 50 trivial mentions of Havana (station) between 1897-1922 as place to go to, be from, leave from, be born in, live near, die in, etc. It's a place. If it doesn't rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia, fair enough, but is (was) a place. It's a place with not much more than a grain elevator and it was a regional wheat shipping point. Nobody seems to have written about it, even our beloved Oregon Geographic Names. I'm sure there are some primary sources about the naming decision by the OR&N but I'm not willing to go to that kind of effort unless it's for master's thesis. I'm taking break from trying to find the magic citation that gives weight to a "keep" argument. But this is what I have for now. I'm leaning towards a merge to the apparently nonexistent section about this rail line in the parent railway article. Valfontis (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's not much of a place, but it was referenced locally as place in a place with very few places (see my newspaper.com clips linked above). I added a bit of info based on my research and removed the now-inaccurate (per the demotion of GNIS as a reliable source) information. If deleted, I think a redirect and a brief mention in the Havana-Helix Highway article would be appropriate.


 * A few notes: I created this article 15 years ago, in good faith, when GNIS was considered a reliable source (and was acceptable to determine if something was a "populated place"). I selectively and thoughtfully created articles based not solely on this source but as proof of existence, coords, etc. Some places just don't have that much to say about them. If "perma stubs" are a problem (where is the community consensus on that these days?), that's OK, but think about how the info could be included elsewhere. The work of a few editors aside, these place articles, at least as far as Oregon is concerned are not "GNIS data dumps" or some other attempt to fill up the encyclopedia with useless crap. I am here to build an encyclopedia. If we could tone down the rhetoric about these articles about human settlements implying the article creators are some kind of sadly misinformed confused uneducated bumpkins, and just focus on the content, and how to improve it, we could really up the civility quotient in these AfDs. Think a place article needs deletion? Propose solutions! Where might the info fit better? Is the county article the best place to put a random blurp about a place? Also make sure you are doing the required redlink cleanup. Do quality work. If it's a bullshit place, it's a bullshit place. Most of these articles aren't that.


 * Request: someone please link me to "I peered at the map and determined the truth about this place" policy, as that seems to be original research. Maps are a great place to start! But I'd caution the nominator to use a more robust approach to WP:BEFORE and offer better proof (what did you check?--e.g. Google Books, JSTOR, etc.--what did you find?) before making such strong statements about how unplacelike a place is. Notability is not temporary, and history topics prior to about 2000 are notoriously hard to research on the web. I realize this is a marginal case, but sources can be found. WP:FUTON is roughly applicable. At some point I'll add this info to an article about the Pendleton Branch line of the Union Pacific Railroad as that is the reason this place exists. I need to check in with the railroad folks. Building an encyclopedia takes time. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - As far as I can tell this was a railroad station, not a community, and doesn't seem to have enough coverage to justify a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 23 June 2024 (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.