Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crestline, Nevada

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. T. Canens (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crestline, Nevada

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per my comment on the talk page:

Crestline is not notable because of WP:STATION. There is no evidence that there was a post office at this location. Crestline is not mentioned in the WPA (1941). Carlson states that Crestline was a non-agency siding and station. It could be that the Crestline Landfill is notable.

Cxbrx (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough newspaper coverage of Crestline to indicate that it was a community in its own right that formed around the railroad, not just a point on the railroad. This article documents a missing persons case in Crestline, and explains its function for the railroad; the same case was also covered in the Reno and Salt Lake City papers [1] [2] [3]. This listing of Lincoln County men eligible for the World War I draft includes several Crestline residents. Three more articles discuss the affairs of Crestline residents [4] [5] [6]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Crestline was a siding or station, so WP:STATION would apply, which requires significant coverage. However, the references to which you refer are trivial coverage and many are stated as concerning employees of the railroad. If the non-notable case of the lost mother and daughter were notable, then that would not make the location notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. For examples of sidings and section houses that have been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harney,_Nevada, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Filben,_Nevada. See Thorne, Nevada for a station that has non-trivial coverage. There were plenty of sidings in Nevada that had section houses were people lived. These locations are not typically notable because they lack non-trivial coverage from multiple sources. Cxbrx (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In thinking about this a bit more, I see that some of the Keep votes are going with the argument that Crestline was more than a station, it was also a community. However, there are many former and present ranches and mines that have trivial coverage and could be considered communities. Yet, these locales are not considered notable. In the case of Crestline, take a look at WP:GEOLAND and consider which of the criteria apply. #1 "Populated, legally recognized places" - Crestline had no local government, nor did it even have a post office. #2 "Populated places without legal recognition" needs "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". If Crestline stays, then I'm fine with that, I'm mainly trying to have a consistent standard applied to these sidings and section houses that had people living at them. My position is that as Crestline had no post office and has no non-trivial coverage, it is not notable. Cxbrx (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's apparent that this was the end of helper territory: a 1970s aerial shows traces of a turning wye. I cannot comment on the newspaper citations. Mangoe (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheCatalyst31's first citation supports the wye (though in the source, it is a "Y"), so I added the citation to the article. Cxbrx (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of it being a community and not just a station per TheCatalyst31. Royal broil 00:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised communities, even if some people did live near the railway facility that doesn't make it a legally recognised community. If it wasn't a legally recognised community then it would have to pass the GNG, and mentions of people who lived there aren't sufficient for that - we wouldn't even be able to cite those in the article. We also don't appear to have a source which explicitly says that it's a community, and trying to infer this from mentions of people who lived there is original research. [7] pretty clearly says that it's just a facility associated with the railway and not a community. Stations or railway facilities don't have any sort of inherent notability. Hut 8.5 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5. If there was a GNG pass, it might be different, but TheCatalyst31's sources are namedrops and casual mentions of the subject. Ravenswing 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an obvious WP:GEOLAND fail. not a legally recognized or populated place. Wm335td (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it fails WP:GEOLAND due to not being legally recognized or populated. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 18 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.