Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roach, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roach, 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 don't think this has notability; not a populated place or anywhere notable, just an old railroad siding. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a ghost town (see page 22). It had a population of 10 circa 1940. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 01:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just removed a bunch of junk from the article (like Hometown Locator) and added more relevant content. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Waddles has demonstrated a 1940 population of 10, this was a populated place. Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing plenty of sources for Roach, Nevada, and was able to expand the article significantly, including an article in the Goldfield Tribune[1], Reno Evening Gazette,[2][3], the Nevada State Journal, and a marriage license being issued for a couple in Roach[4]. This is a community which was making state news with the amount of zinc and lead being mined and shipped from the area. The amount of ore hauled to Roach broke a record, according to the Goldfield Tribune.

Because of the community's name, it's difficult to sift through the news results, but there appear to be hundreds of results for Roach. Given time, this could become a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legally recognized, though? –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The population numbers throughout the document are from the 1940 Census. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The census does not confer legal recognition. For example, it includes places without legal recognition (e.g., neighbourhoods, unincorporated towns, and even individual households). The census is only intended to tally people by location, not confer legal recognition on places. It is also not evidence that a locality had a government of any kind, which is typically the acid-test of "legal recognition". FOARP (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". jp×g 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Waddles. I also see some stuff that got lost over the years: see this previous from 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Roach,_Nevada&oldid=368650490

I'll be adding some of the UP & topo/USGS stuff back in, maybe tomorrow. Pete Tillman (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND as a former populated place. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:GEOLAND requires either A) legal recognition or B) significant non-trivial coverage in accordance with GNG; I don't believe that the above !votes are interpreting this guideline correctly. The place lacks legal recognition and the source which has been added simply tells us the origin of the name which isn't the type of in-depth coverage we're looking for. –dlthewave ☎ 02:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm still not seeing much in-depth coverage about Roach itself, but the expanded content at least shows its significance as a shipping point. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as former populated place, ghost town per census records. Djflem (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dlthewave is correct. The keep !votes are misinterpreting WP:GEOLAND #1 which requires evidence of legal recognition. There is no evidence that this location was ever legally recognised though, e.g., incorporation. Wikipedia is not a directory of every place ever described in any source as populated. WP:NOT, which is core policy and above WP:GEOLAND which is only a guideline (and also incidentally above WP:5P, which is essay-level), specifically states that Wikipedia is not a directory, yet this is essentially a directory listing. For the avoidance of doubt, neither of the references cited are significant coverage, so WP:GNG is also not passed. See WP:NOTGAZETTEER for further explanation of the reasoning here. FOARP (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Retention would be consistent with consensus as described in Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES and the Wikipedia features of a gazetteer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES does not mention anything about railway sidings. "[F]eatures of ... gazetteers", comes from WP:5P (an essay, not intended to be a guideline or policy) and does not extend to things that Wikipedia is resolutely NOT (i.e., being a directory/dictionary). And, come on, a place with no legal recognition (which is required by WP:GEOLAND #1), no government, no nothing, no evidence of an actual community, with a population of 10? If that, a number of people who might well have lived in a single building, is going to be our definition of a "community", then my house (which is also in my national census) is also worthy of a Wikipedia article. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there were several reliable sources talking about the historical relevance of your house, specifically, as an inhabited area relevant to mining in the early 20th century, I think it would be obviously notable. jp×g 04:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it is presumed to be notable per GEOLAND, this presumption is rebuttable, and it is being rebutted now that we're actually looking at the sources. A line in a census is not a sufficient basis for an article (WP:GNG, WP:V). Sandstein 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; significant expansion since nomination warrants a re-examination of general notability. To me, this seems quite sufficient; there are now nine sources. Sure, one of them is from GNIS and one is from mindat, but the rest are obviously about the history of Roach as an inhabited place. jp×g 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per User:JPxG above. These adds seem to me to answer the questions raised re Roach's Notability. It's now an above-average article on a ghost town. Speaking as an editor who has a long-standing interest in such places. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC) struck double vote Avilich (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow engagement with sources presented by Firsfron.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly notable ex-mining town. YttriumShrew (talk)
Leaning keep The article has been improved, it's not much, but still technically a settlement with things to be said about it. Probably just about enough to meet notability. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 13 November 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.