Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahlsten, Minnesota


 * 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__. ✗ plicit  01:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Wahlsten, Minnesota

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Another case where people should be reading the works cited, as the place names book lists this as a "railroad station", not a town, and the topos and aerials show the same. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation,  and Minnesota.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, but: 2001 revised edition, you see.  The MHS did some work on the original. Uncle G (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as a recognized settlement. The place is rather spread out and best known for, on the physical side, streams, flora, and fauna, and on the human side, roads and a former railway station. The tracks have been replaced by a trail. gidonb (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see proof of it being known for streams. And there's an "Ah, but" for this, too. Ah, but: Minnesota doesn't legally recognize villages any more.  It stopped doing so on 1974-01-01.  There hasn't been any such legal entity as a village in Minnesota for 50 years minus a fortnight.  Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some evidence at all. There's no rail station there, and as best I can tell there hasn't been one for half a century at least, maybe longer. "Rather spread out" really means "this is a locale, not a town or village." Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * | There are only a few sparse structures on satellite and not much else besides forests and fields for miles in any direction. The railroad in question was dug out at some point years ago and is now labelled on GMaps as a "snowmobile trail" (although I assume the trail is also used for hiking and such in the summer).
 * Per User:Uncle G, whatever "village" or "unincorporated community" claim there supposedly is isn't legally recognized anymore, and even if it was, there is hardly anything there to really justify a "village" or "unincorporated community" claim. Unless there is any other proof out there that this was an actual recognized settlement at some point, this was certainly just a marker for a railway stop and nothing more. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I never called this a village. That's in User:Uncle G's citation, who then raised this with me. Or maybe he was just thinking out loud. In any case, more scrutiny led me to believe that it is unclear whether this is a populated place/community/settlement or just some houses that share a road. Perhaps there was more there there in the past but I am not 100% sure even about of that. gidonb (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did take a look at aerial photography of this region from the 1930s and later in the 20th century and could not distil a clear concentration of structures at that time. gidonb (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is another sad example of a rural railroad waypoint being falsely described as a "community" based only on GNIS and maybe a place-names guide. This map:  shows Wahlsten to be located on land owned by a C. Wahlstein, strongly suggesting this was a flag stop named for the local landowner (this was once a common practice on railroads).  Flag stops are not inherently notable, and without other information we have no evidence this was a populated OR legally-recognized place.  The 1951 Biwabik NE, MN USGS topo map shows a level crossing with 1 (one) building:, nothing even approaching a community.  It's therefore a fail of WP:GEOLAND and without secondary coverage a fail of WP:GNG also. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I did a deep dive including searching Newspapers and was unable to find anything that would be substantive.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 02:31, 21 December 2023 (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.