Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lookout, Wyoming (2nd nomination)
- 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lookout, Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page fails WP:GEOLAND as it is both not (and never has been) a legally-recognised (e.g., through incorporation) populated place, nor is it a WP:GNG pass as all the references are passing mentions that fail to give WP:SIGCOV or are not even talking about the subject (e.g., the wind farm reference). In reality this was only ever just a rail stop. The previous AFD was wrongly decided under the misunderstanding that GNIS is a reliable source regarding whether Lookout station itself (as opposed to its surrounding district) was ever populated (it is not), that post-offices are a form of legally recognition (they are not - a post office may be located anywhere, and is often just an adjunct to a store, or in this case a rail stop), and that Wikipedia is a gazetteer per se (it is not - it simply has features of a gazetteer). FOARP (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The last AfD was correctly decided. Lookout was listed in the 1940 census and had a post office. That counts as legal recognition for GEOLAND. There was no misunderstanding about GNIS -- Lookout is/was a small village but had an actual population. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given that post offices may be anywhere (including on board trains), were and are often just adjuncts to stores/stations that weren't necessarily located in communities, why do you believe that a post-office confers legal recognition on a locality? Similarly, given that the census data is for the surrounding district, and not for the station per se, how does the census data demonstrate that anyone lived there? And why is census data, which can be for any kind of community, recognised or not, used as evidence of legal recognition? FOARP (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- While a post office is not by itself proof that it is a community, combined with census figures it shows that this truly was a small community. According to this blog, it was a small village of 30 people, which is borne by the Census data. And the fact that is from the surrounding district is not important, since we are not merely counting the data from the Lookout station house right? If you need more proof, here are some residents of Lookout: [1] [2] [3] [4]. While there are plenty of GNIS errors out there, this is not one of them. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- But where's the evidence of legal recognition here? We've got a blog (not RS) with a photo of an abandoned gas-station, a newspaper story of a rail employee who appears to have been based at the station being robbed, a report of someone who died intestate who was last reported living there, another news story of a rail employee getting married, and another report of someone dying who used to live there. All of this is consistent with a rail stop where some employees lived (possibly just the station master and their family?), and not a community as such, still less a legally-recognised one. None of these actually describes what Lookout was beyond saying it had a station, a camp site, and some ranches nearby. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly more people lived there than the station master, although probably no more than 30, per Census figures. As to what constitutes legal recognition, having a post office and census count is fine for me. Why try to delete this pretty well-sourced stub when there are plenty of less-notable GNIS errors out there? We've established this isn't one of them. If a place (district, township, etc.) has a census count, I can't think of an example of an article being deleted. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've been involved in cases where we've bulk-deleted thousands of locations mentioned in a census or census-style database. More than one. Also cases where we've mass re-directed hundreds of locations with bare mentions in a census-style databases.
- The figure of 30 is for the district as whole, not the station that is the subject of this article. Were we to try to refactor the article to be about the census district this would also not be good as census tracts aren't notable under WP:GEOLAND, since such districts do not actually indicate that any real community was present at that location but instead just count the number of people within an area, nothing more. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly more people lived there than the station master, although probably no more than 30, per Census figures. As to what constitutes legal recognition, having a post office and census count is fine for me. Why try to delete this pretty well-sourced stub when there are plenty of less-notable GNIS errors out there? We've established this isn't one of them. If a place (district, township, etc.) has a census count, I can't think of an example of an article being deleted. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- But where's the evidence of legal recognition here? We've got a blog (not RS) with a photo of an abandoned gas-station, a newspaper story of a rail employee who appears to have been based at the station being robbed, a report of someone who died intestate who was last reported living there, another news story of a rail employee getting married, and another report of someone dying who used to live there. All of this is consistent with a rail stop where some employees lived (possibly just the station master and their family?), and not a community as such, still less a legally-recognised one. None of these actually describes what Lookout was beyond saying it had a station, a camp site, and some ranches nearby. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- While a post office is not by itself proof that it is a community, combined with census figures it shows that this truly was a small community. According to this blog, it was a small village of 30 people, which is borne by the Census data. And the fact that is from the surrounding district is not important, since we are not merely counting the data from the Lookout station house right? If you need more proof, here are some residents of Lookout: [1] [2] [3] [4]. While there are plenty of GNIS errors out there, this is not one of them. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given that post offices may be anywhere (including on board trains), were and are often just adjuncts to stores/stations that weren't necessarily located in communities, why do you believe that a post-office confers legal recognition on a locality? Similarly, given that the census data is for the surrounding district, and not for the station per se, how does the census data demonstrate that anyone lived there? And why is census data, which can be for any kind of community, recognised or not, used as evidence of legal recognition? FOARP (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. None of the sources describe this as a "village" or confirm that anyone besides the station agent lived there. The census count is for the Lookout census district, not the railroad stop itself. –dlthewave ☎ 00:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is a gazetteer about settlements. This is/was a settlement. --Doncram (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to have history enough as a place. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Editorofthewiki. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep; if the station and its attendant district were populated settlements (and we can actually cite this to something, as has been done in the article), I don't see what is gained by deleting them. If only the district was populated, this doesn't change much to me (surely there is not enough here to split out into Lookout District, Wyoming and Lookout Station, Wyoming). jp×g 22:29, 15 November 2021 (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.