Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetlin Junction, Alaska


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tetlin Junction, Alaska

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Likely not a community. Google Maps shows a crossing between two highways, with a building nearby. wizzito &#124; say hello!  01:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  01:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  01:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — We're supposed to be a historical record, not another current events site. Even if it presently doesn't appear to be a settlement in the accepted sense, it was in decades past.  GNIS describes it as a populated place, which means that it was at the time the record was made by USGS, and that should be good enough per WP:GEOLAND, WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE.  I believe the problem here centers on the use of "unincorporated community" as a catch-all for anything which escapes more specific categorization, potentially confusing people who have a specific idea of what constitutes a community in the context of populated places. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI GNIS is unreliable for "feature class" designations such as Populated Place. The names in the database were copied over from topo maps, and there are numerous transcription errors where crossroads, rail junctions, landforms, etc are mislabeled as populated places. We would need a better source to support the notion that it is/was a community, and it would also need to meet GEOLAND through either official recognition or significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The WP:GNIS is highly unreliable in its classification and does not bestow notability. All newspapers.com results refer to it a a location at one end of the Taylor Highway (a possible redirect target), like, no descriptions of a community. One mentions the Roadhouse there, but I don't see notability. Reywas92Talk 13:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTGAZETEER - Fails WP:GEOLAND as, even if it were ever populated, it was never a legally recognised populated place. GNIS is an unreliable source for whether a place was populated or not, and anyway does not confer legal recognition. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, and does not include articles merely on geographical locations regardless of notability. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're citing an essay created by yourself earlier this year, one which contradicts long-standing consensus. OTOH, WP:5P1 begins with "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."  Which of the two do you think I should side with?  As for the "legally recognized" part, the portion of GEOLAND you're cherry-picking goes on further to state "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history."  We haven't even addressed long-standing editing activity on the part of many editors, motivated by their belief that CDPs are totally artificial creations of the Census Bureau.  In other words, according to that definition of "legally recognized", I'll be eagerly awaiting all the ensuing AFDs on those places.  Unless, of course, targeting this one article is merely another example of picking low-hanging fruit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi RadioKAOS. I'm citing an essay I wrote myself because it argues concisely, without me having to repeat it here, why I think you're wrong about WP:5P (which is...also an essay-level guide BTW, albeit a high-impact one, and not a policy or guideline). In contrast WP:NOT is core policy, above even WP:GEOLAND which is a guideline, and states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary/directory (which is what gazetteers essentially are according to our article on them). Obviously I do not believe it contradicts long-standing consensus, for the reasons stated in the essay (i.e., Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a gazetteer).
 * I'm not sure why you are bringing up CDPs here. You haven't provided a reason to believe this place was ever legally recognised in any way. There is nothing wrong with targeting low-hanging fruit, indeed I would say this particular fruit is no longer even on the branch. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * delete GNIS is back up, and it says "Named because it marks the junction of two important highways in the Tetlin Indian Reservation." GNIS's classification often is inaccurate (see WP:GNIS) but their sources as to the names are uniformly reliable. If it was once a settlement, then produce a source that says so; but GNIS is not that source. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't know what all is going on above (who gives a toss if it's legally recognized?) but I haven't found anything useful in archives to indicate that this was ever a populated place. A road went there in 1951. Someone drove there in 1952. Someone worked at a restaurant there once. Someone was from there, once, in 1963. Someone drove there in 1972. Someone drove there in 2000. Not a whole lot to write home about. jp×g 13:19, 10 November 2021 (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.