Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teckla, Wyoming

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teckla, Wyoming

[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)

Lots of references to this in terms of geology and specifically coal, because when you look at the correct location on the topos and aerials, it has since been overrun by the North Antelope Rochelle Mine, because this is Powder River coal country. There's also a big substation named after the place which was built around 1990, a ways to the west. Before that, it apparently was a single house, and according to the Wyoming State Library, it was Teckla Post Office", named after one of the postmistresses. No evidence I can find that the house was part of a town. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a poster-child for why the "it has a post office and someone lived there once, therefore it must be/have been a legally-recognised populated community" tendency is just flat-out wrong. There's just nothing there to write an actual encyclopaedia article about. Nobody ever decided that Wikipedia suddenly became something other than an encyclopaedia when writing about populated places, Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and this is a pure gazetteer listing.

@Mangoe: - am I right that doing full WP:BEFORE on this took easily ~30 minutes or more? I expect so given the work you had to do with topos and the state library. And the combined effect of people double-checking your WP:BEFORE here at AFD will easily push this into man-hours of work total? Yet creating this article took the creator seconds. Two minutes earlier they created Turnercrest, Wyoming and two minutes later they created Rockypoint, Wyoming, all created simply by importing listings on GNIS (which is unreliable for whether a place was populated or not and is not evidence of legal recognition) into Wikipedia. And unlike some of the other mass-creation campaigns, this one happened relatively recently.

The sooner we add bare gazetteer-listings to WP:NOT, the same way we did with dictionary definitions/directory listings (which is what gazetteer listings basically are anyway), the better. If an encyclopaedic article can be written about it, then great - I've raised some bare gazetteer listings to articles that are at least within spitting distance of being encyclopaedic myself - but we really need a full solution to this GNIS/GEONet stub spam that doesn't involve having to do a full WP:BEFORE on every single one because it's a total time-waste for so many cases. Apologies for the rant but this is just how I see things. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP:: Typically it takes a minimum of 15 minutes or so to do the most basic look at the maps and aerials and to do the first search. IF I don't immediately find something in either that makes it clear it is/was a real town, the time starts to mount up. In this case it took quite a bit longer because of the large number of false hits and because the GNIS coordinates were inaccurate, as sometimes happens. And of course it takes time to enter the AfD. I would guess I might have spent as much as a hour on this case. Turnercrest, Wyoming was much quicker because the third Ghit resolved all questions, but that's rare. And I have two cases on the back burner which are real ghost towns with quite a bit of history which I haven't had time to write up properly. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "is an unincorporated community" is negligently false. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unencyclopedic geostub. Avilich (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 24 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.