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.
delete The only map I can find that seems to show the Argonne CDP doesn't include this spot, and I can't find any other evidence to support that inclusion. This is unsurprising given that the town has rather well-defined edges, with this wye junction sitting out at an isolated spot over a mile west of town. It's not a settlement and not a notable rail point.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, I read both articles, and it seems that someone doesn't understand how CDPs work. The most common case for a CDP is an unincorporated town— like Argonne— and if you look at the census website now, it only recognizes the CDP, and not the town as a separate entry. So, no, I don't believe what the articles claim, especially insofar as they claim the census reported the town separately from the CDP. In any case, without a map showing the borders, there's no way to verify that the junction is in either the town or the CDP as the census did or did not delineate either.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Hey
Mangoe, are you familiar with the
unique usage of "town" in Wisconsin? The town of Argonne would be the large 100-square-mile unincorporated area (similar to a township), which Argonne CDP (the small visible settlement) is a part of. I haven't seen the boundaries but it likely does encompass Wisconsin Junction. –
dlthewave☎22:03, 27 September 2021 (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.
delete The only map I can find that seems to show the Argonne CDP doesn't include this spot, and I can't find any other evidence to support that inclusion. This is unsurprising given that the town has rather well-defined edges, with this wye junction sitting out at an isolated spot over a mile west of town. It's not a settlement and not a notable rail point.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, I read both articles, and it seems that someone doesn't understand how CDPs work. The most common case for a CDP is an unincorporated town— like Argonne— and if you look at the census website now, it only recognizes the CDP, and not the town as a separate entry. So, no, I don't believe what the articles claim, especially insofar as they claim the census reported the town separately from the CDP. In any case, without a map showing the borders, there's no way to verify that the junction is in either the town or the CDP as the census did or did not delineate either.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Hey
Mangoe, are you familiar with the
unique usage of "town" in Wisconsin? The town of Argonne would be the large 100-square-mile unincorporated area (similar to a township), which Argonne CDP (the small visible settlement) is a part of. I haven't seen the boundaries but it likely does encompass Wisconsin Junction. –
dlthewave☎22:03, 27 September 2021 (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.