- 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. The problems are that the keep argument was refuted adequately, and the merge argument stalled because of a lack of a target article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ruth, Washington ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is technically the second deletion for this article, but the first was part of a group nomination of a group of rail sidings on the Hanford Site. This is for a different spot, but it isn't quite clear which of the two possibilities out of GNIS it could correspond to. It's possible that the article is conflating the two places since the less likely one ( U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ruth, Washington in Benton County) had a wye and the otherwise more likely one ( U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ruth, Washington in Lewis County) did not, but both of them appear to be otherwise uninhabited rail locations which as a rule we have not held notable. Mangoe ( talk) 03:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This locale is only notable at a local level, given how minor a role it played in railroading in Washington State. TH1980 ( talk) 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe ( talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - This rail loading point does not seem to have received direct in-depth coverage to meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The sources only mention it in passing and do not provide significant coverage for the station, nor do they call it a community as the article was created. Reywas92 Talk 14:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or merge - Article creator here...small wall-of-text coming!
- When I began the page I based it as a community under two reasons - GNIS and census documentation. I was unaware of the WP:GNIS issues at the time, nor did I confuse it with the other Ruth in Benton county, and I did not include refs for census sources, as like GNIS, they seem to be rather contentious by some powerful editors here (not dependable, not independent). In a couple of Lewis County history books, Ruth is described as a community (back then...early 20th...one listing approx. 50 people) but nothing else...no expansion or definition of what they meant by "community". I never used those as sources because it was no more than what I found at newspaper archives. Overall, though, it seemed like it qualified to me. Maybe I've watched too many westerns...where there's a train station, there's people. But, ultimately I determined (basing it on the right, right, right words of editor MrX at the Susie, Washington deletion page) that if a place of population existed, it's notable.
- Other editors differed and the page has had a slew of changes, bringing it back down to a rail station only. I disagreed with none of it, and still don't, because sourcing and expertise demanded it. I believe there was a community there at one point, but I agree, we gotta find more than a blurb. It has to be labeled a rail/transfer/loading station for now. I don't argue that.
- So why, Keep? The place existed. I am a believer that as a repository of knowledge, Wikipedia has a duty to provide access to history whenever it can. Failing to include certain places can cause great harm as it begats a great disservice (especially to smaller areas and communities) by ignoring and intentionally leaving out history. This leads to certain communities and histories being forgotten. To me, that's an anathema to knowledge.
- Okay, so how about Merge? Building off my above paragraph, let's not forget about Ruth. We can simply add a subsection to Lewis_County,_Washington#Communities, perhaps titled "Rail stations" or "Ghost rail stations" or "Let's not forget a place that existed". We transfer what is written here (relying on train depot/station experts to rewrite if necessary) and Ruth can be remembered.
- The only other option I see would be for someone to create an article, say, "Washington state extinct rail stations" or something of the kind, adding Ruth's info to that.
- Ultimately, Ruth, Washington existed. I get it...notability...notability...notability...but I have a long track record stating that placing a harsh rule on small, forgotten areas creates an undue burden that Ruth cannot reach. There is no Wall Street Journal report that I can find...there is no in depth book written by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr...there is no mention of it by Oprah.
- But Ruth, Washington existed. We have an opportunity here to make sure it is not forgotten. And if in-depth notability is what is keeping Ruth from being remembered, as
Reywas92 would agree (Ha!), it'd be a damn shame.
Shortiefourten (
talk)
19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think the argument you are making is WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, which sometimes I think is not used enough on Wikipedia. Amongst all the thousands of borderline promo BLPs with three very marginal refs from obscure RS fighting for their prized Wikipedia notability (because Wikipedia is the most important plank of their notability), we do forget that this is an encyclopedia and that as a unique online encyclopedia, we can do things for society that a paper one cannot. And where there is no promo or fancruft involved, then the discussion should always include the concepts of NOTPAPER and PRESERVE. Aszx5000 ( talk) 10:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per Shortiefourten - just need to find a proper merge destination. SportingFlyer T· C 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear, and a proper merge destination hasn't been found yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I'm stil not sure of the significance of this place, even if article creator's points are valid. Regardless, the subject does not fit WP:NPLACE, and I do not think the article should be given a special waiver of this notability guideline just for article creator's own sentimental value towards the station. I'd be fine to merge this into a list of former communities if such place to put the name can be found as long as it contains all other former/abandoned places in Lewis County like this one. Karnataka ( talk) 09:55, 18 June 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.
- 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. The problems are that the keep argument was refuted adequately, and the merge argument stalled because of a lack of a target article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ruth, Washington ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is technically the second deletion for this article, but the first was part of a group nomination of a group of rail sidings on the Hanford Site. This is for a different spot, but it isn't quite clear which of the two possibilities out of GNIS it could correspond to. It's possible that the article is conflating the two places since the less likely one ( U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ruth, Washington in Benton County) had a wye and the otherwise more likely one ( U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ruth, Washington in Lewis County) did not, but both of them appear to be otherwise uninhabited rail locations which as a rule we have not held notable. Mangoe ( talk) 03:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Washington. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This locale is only notable at a local level, given how minor a role it played in railroading in Washington State. TH1980 ( talk) 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe ( talk) 20:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - This rail loading point does not seem to have received direct in-depth coverage to meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The sources only mention it in passing and do not provide significant coverage for the station, nor do they call it a community as the article was created. Reywas92 Talk 14:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or merge - Article creator here...small wall-of-text coming!
- When I began the page I based it as a community under two reasons - GNIS and census documentation. I was unaware of the WP:GNIS issues at the time, nor did I confuse it with the other Ruth in Benton county, and I did not include refs for census sources, as like GNIS, they seem to be rather contentious by some powerful editors here (not dependable, not independent). In a couple of Lewis County history books, Ruth is described as a community (back then...early 20th...one listing approx. 50 people) but nothing else...no expansion or definition of what they meant by "community". I never used those as sources because it was no more than what I found at newspaper archives. Overall, though, it seemed like it qualified to me. Maybe I've watched too many westerns...where there's a train station, there's people. But, ultimately I determined (basing it on the right, right, right words of editor MrX at the Susie, Washington deletion page) that if a place of population existed, it's notable.
- Other editors differed and the page has had a slew of changes, bringing it back down to a rail station only. I disagreed with none of it, and still don't, because sourcing and expertise demanded it. I believe there was a community there at one point, but I agree, we gotta find more than a blurb. It has to be labeled a rail/transfer/loading station for now. I don't argue that.
- So why, Keep? The place existed. I am a believer that as a repository of knowledge, Wikipedia has a duty to provide access to history whenever it can. Failing to include certain places can cause great harm as it begats a great disservice (especially to smaller areas and communities) by ignoring and intentionally leaving out history. This leads to certain communities and histories being forgotten. To me, that's an anathema to knowledge.
- Okay, so how about Merge? Building off my above paragraph, let's not forget about Ruth. We can simply add a subsection to Lewis_County,_Washington#Communities, perhaps titled "Rail stations" or "Ghost rail stations" or "Let's not forget a place that existed". We transfer what is written here (relying on train depot/station experts to rewrite if necessary) and Ruth can be remembered.
- The only other option I see would be for someone to create an article, say, "Washington state extinct rail stations" or something of the kind, adding Ruth's info to that.
- Ultimately, Ruth, Washington existed. I get it...notability...notability...notability...but I have a long track record stating that placing a harsh rule on small, forgotten areas creates an undue burden that Ruth cannot reach. There is no Wall Street Journal report that I can find...there is no in depth book written by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr...there is no mention of it by Oprah.
- But Ruth, Washington existed. We have an opportunity here to make sure it is not forgotten. And if in-depth notability is what is keeping Ruth from being remembered, as
Reywas92 would agree (Ha!), it'd be a damn shame.
Shortiefourten (
talk)
19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think the argument you are making is WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, which sometimes I think is not used enough on Wikipedia. Amongst all the thousands of borderline promo BLPs with three very marginal refs from obscure RS fighting for their prized Wikipedia notability (because Wikipedia is the most important plank of their notability), we do forget that this is an encyclopedia and that as a unique online encyclopedia, we can do things for society that a paper one cannot. And where there is no promo or fancruft involved, then the discussion should always include the concepts of NOTPAPER and PRESERVE. Aszx5000 ( talk) 10:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per Shortiefourten - just need to find a proper merge destination. SportingFlyer T· C 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear, and a proper merge destination hasn't been found yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I'm stil not sure of the significance of this place, even if article creator's points are valid. Regardless, the subject does not fit WP:NPLACE, and I do not think the article should be given a special waiver of this notability guideline just for article creator's own sentimental value towards the station. I'd be fine to merge this into a list of former communities if such place to put the name can be found as long as it contains all other former/abandoned places in Lewis County like this one. Karnataka ( talk) 09:55, 18 June 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.