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.
Another rail facility mistakenly identified as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe RR. There was a post office located there but, as we've seen, it's not a good indication of community. Location is still completely agricultural. Not a community and not notable in any other respect.
Glendoremus (
talk)
00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing
WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, I don't see any evidence that this place was legally recognised, and there's clearly nobody living there now. I don't agree that having a post office constitutes legal recognition. If it's not legally recognised then it has to pass the
GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Sources which mention that people living there bought cars, somebody stayed there overnight once, etc are not usable as sources as they couldn't be cited in the article. Attempts to infer other things from the terminology used in headlines or the naming of nearby resorts constitute
original research. Hut 8.507:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep In my view, having a post office is an indication of legal recognition. The fact that there were residents establishes this as a community. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
well, it's not. Back before RFD, post offices had to exist for people to pick up their mail within a reasonable distance, and thus they were put in all sorts of places, including houses. It didn't mean there was a town by that name.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I do understand that. But the presence of articles about people from Orwood helps establish this was a community in some sense, if a largely agricultural one. So I'm not proposing that the presence of a PO is a guarantee of notability, but an indication. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails notability.
WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" Typically does not mean always, presumed is not a guarantee. The simple presence of a Post Office (past or present) at a rail junction does not meet
WP:N: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" What about this is worthy of notice? //
Timothy :: talk17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Another rail facility mistakenly identified as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe RR. There was a post office located there but, as we've seen, it's not a good indication of community. Location is still completely agricultural. Not a community and not notable in any other respect.
Glendoremus (
talk)
00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing
WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, I don't see any evidence that this place was legally recognised, and there's clearly nobody living there now. I don't agree that having a post office constitutes legal recognition. If it's not legally recognised then it has to pass the
GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Sources which mention that people living there bought cars, somebody stayed there overnight once, etc are not usable as sources as they couldn't be cited in the article. Attempts to infer other things from the terminology used in headlines or the naming of nearby resorts constitute
original research. Hut 8.507:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep In my view, having a post office is an indication of legal recognition. The fact that there were residents establishes this as a community. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
well, it's not. Back before RFD, post offices had to exist for people to pick up their mail within a reasonable distance, and thus they were put in all sorts of places, including houses. It didn't mean there was a town by that name.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I do understand that. But the presence of articles about people from Orwood helps establish this was a community in some sense, if a largely agricultural one. So I'm not proposing that the presence of a PO is a guarantee of notability, but an indication. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~
14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails notability.
WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" Typically does not mean always, presumed is not a guarantee. The simple presence of a Post Office (past or present) at a rail junction does not meet
WP:N: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" What about this is worthy of notice? //
Timothy :: talk17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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.