Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington


 * 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. As has come up in multiple previous AfDs, the tagging of entries in the GNIS can be mistaken, so by itself it cannot be relied on for meeting WP:GEOLAND. The consensus of the discussion is that these are probably not populated places that would meet WP:GEOLAND, and there is not sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Susie, Washington

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Also including

Another reminder: Do not use the GNIS to lazily mass-produce microstubs on supposed communities! According to at least the first four of these are merely internal identifiers for Industrial spurs on the Hanford Site. I can't find a single source mentioning the rest but their map locations indicate they must be the same or similar. The incorrect "is an unincorporated community" has unfortunately persisted here and other pages more than seven years despite its obvious inaccuracy on the map. Reywas92Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not sure what "another reminder" means since I was not reminded of any such policy in the first place. According to our notability guideline, WP:GEOLAND "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." According to the United States Board on Geographical names, these are populated places: . The nom is correct that the articles incorrectly identify the locations as unincorporated communities. They should be identified as populated places, but deletion is not cleanup.


 * It so happens that these populated places are on the significantly historical Hanford site, which was constructed during World War II after the local population was relocated from the area. Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.


 * Although I don't think theYouTube video linked by the nom would pass as a reliable source, it does suggest that these geographical features have historical significance, so if there is consensus to delete these articles, the titles should at least be redirected to Hanford site and the content, coordinates, and citations should be merged into that article. However, leaving the article intact is consistent with the usual latitude allowed for such articles and enwiki's longstanding role as a gazetteer. - MrX 🖋 13:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not populated places. These never were populated places. These are not "legally recognized" populated places. These never had people living there. These are not notable. As has been extensively shown (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) the GNIS is an unreliable source and what it classifies as "populated place" is very regularly not actually a populated place, and certainly not the same as meant by GEOLAND. The Youtube video is published by the Atomic Heritage Foundation and is certainly a reliable source. I do not believe the FA Hanford Site article really needs mention of its nicknames for railroad spurs, but the editors there can decide. The only populated places there were the former Hanford and White Bluffs. We are not a gazetteer but "contains features" of one, and each place on the planet does not need a separate article. The "another reminder" was not specifically to you, but the many editors who have written articles with false, outdated, and non-notable information with the WP:ONESOURCE of the GNIS. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the Topo map depicting these names as spur junctions on the railroad in 1965, absent in 1951, later given the incorrect classification in the GNIS, and uncritically copied to Wikipedia. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The YouTube content is from a Hanford Site tour manager and published by the Atomic Heritage Foundation which looks reliable to me. –dlthewave ☎ 19:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per comment by above. if this set of entries fits within the parameters of any established or existing types of coverage here at Wikipedia, then I'm all for retaining these entries. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia's coverage does not include individual articles for industrial railroad spurs about which there is zero significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sm8900's view should be interpreted as a "Delete" !vote, I think, because it is a conditional statement (if A is true then Keep), and the condition is not true, so therefore Sm8900 must intend for it to be deleted. It would be fine if they would choose to reply, but that is certainly how I would interpret their view so far.--Doncram (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No evidence any of these are or ever were populated places or otherwise meet GNG. MB 05:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The guideline of GEO asks us to refer to WP:N when there is an area, or census tract, or neighborhood, mobile home park etc. The articles which appear in this nomination are not notable and do not pass our subject guidelines or are notability guidelines and so should be deleted. OTOH: I did not search out targets for redirection, however that is a possibility the nominator and others here can consider. Wm335td (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete If these were the sites of dormitories for workers or there was any evidence that people resided at this locations, then redirects might be appropriate. However that is not the case, and there are no other grounds for redirecting.Pontificalibus 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As the nominator pointed out, the first four (Susie, Ruth, Geneva, Ginger) are not populated places but rather rail junctions that were named after female Hanford Site employees during construction. Venturing a bit into OR territory, Google Maps shows that the rest are also located on railroad spurs or junctions. There's no reason that these junctions would have all been built at previously-populated locations; the likeliest explanation is that these were named the same way as Susie et al. In any case there doesn't seem to be significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:57, 12 January 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.