Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lookout, Wyoming


 * 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 keep. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Lookout, Wyoming

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was deprodded with the rationale of "This page should not be deleted because it has the U6 Census Class Code which is used, as we can read on US Geological Survey's webpage, for Populated (Community) Place (except those associated with facilities). A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. The deletion suggested says that the place is a railroad siding. If it were a railroad then it would not have U6 Census Class Code, because that code does not includes facilites as a railroad siding is." This is contradicted by the fact that GNIS does mislabel railroad sidings as "populated places" (see WP:GNIS) and no other sources have been found to corroborate the label. Even if we do take the GNIS source at face value, this location is neither legally recognized nor does it meet GNG, therefore failing the WP:GEOLAND notability guideline. There's been a bit of discussion on the article's talk page regarding the existence of a road, a ranch and some sort of high point as well as a permit application that uses the name. None of this changes my assessment; it does appear that the "Lookout" name is used as a local landmark, but none of this is sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Did you also nominate Cooper Lake, Wyoming?  Ya screwed the pooch on that one, i think that should be withdrawn!  I'll take a look at this one too.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Article  developed using known sources.Djflem (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * delete Everything says that it was never a town, including the sources cited. As a point on the railroad it needs more than some passing references to get some notability. What has been listed (and I found a name drop in a Harlequin Romance as well) just isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Had a post office. This  claims someone was from there. Combining that short verification with the current stub, I think it's a perfectly fine geographic article, as WP:GEOLAND has a lower barrier to entry as we're a gazetteer. There's lots of improper GNIS articles out there but there's no need to delete stubs just because they're stubs. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether a post office as a location is itself notable was argued inconclusively; I'm sticking to the principle that it isn't, because historically they have been placed according to the needs of postal delivery. As far as people being "from" a place, that doesn't tell us what the place was; it merely establishes a locale. It certainly doesn't mean that the person was from the station building. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are getting far too far into the weeds here. This shows there was a post office here. Is a post office conclusive of a populated place? Not necessarily. Are there other things showing people lived in this area, such as census results? Yes. Is it known as a place to people in the area? Yes. Can we write a good stub on it? Yes. Are geography notability guidelines very low due to the nature of this being a gazetteer? Yes. There are many hoaxes or false entries in GNIS. This does not appear to be one of them, and fairly clearly. Why would we possibly delete this? SportingFlyer  T · C  19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - As was noted, Lookout had a post office. This fellow lived in Lookout, and others were born or lived near Lookout. This Wyoming map identifies Lookout as a village.  This blog, while not a reliable source, says "the tiny burg of Lookout never had a population of any more than about 30 people".  Finally, Lookout appeared in the 1950 US Census (p. 50-7). Magnolia677 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lookout was annexed to the Bosler district in 1948 and wasn't shown in the 1950 Census. Going back to the 1940 Census (p. 1185), the population is listed as 34 (1920), 33 (1930) and 6 (1940). It's important to note that it's listed as a "district", not a town; the Census used election district boundaries as a convenient way to count people in unincorporated areas. The census doesn't support the claim that 30 or so people, or anyone for that matter, actually lived at the Lookout location.
 * Please note that WP:NGEO specifically excludes "various maps and tables" from consideration in establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: We've already established existence more than adequately, which satisfies WP:V. I have found a few references which indicates there are more historical documents DESCRIBING Lookout. See Talk:Lookout, Wyoming. Lots of research has been conducted in the last two days by various wiki editors and notes having been left on this AfD, the article's Talk page, and the article itself having been enhanced— including the addition of three sources describing the area. Normal Op (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes GEOLAND as an actual, populated place. People lived here. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bosler, Wyoming WP:CHEAP. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lookout isn't IN Bosler; it's about 9 miles away from that other allegedly whistlestop-nowhere-place. If you've got to redirect an article about a place, you should put it in an article which is associated with it. Not something merely down the road geographically. Before offering the idea of a redirect/merge, you should actually read the target article and ask yourself "Would this content fit in this article somehow? Does that make sense to a reader, or someone seeking information about this topic?" And are we trying to save disk space at Wikipedia? Would anything be saved if this same content were duplicated elsewhere and a redirect created? Normal Op (talk) 06:38, 25 May 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.