Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boylston Junction, Wisconsin

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 no consensus. There seems to be a good deal of support for the view that this mass nomination was ill advised and that separate nominations are required for a proper assessment of the individual articles. Therefore, there's no prejudice against immediate renominations of those articles not struck out by the nominator below. Deor (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boylston Junction, Wisconsin

[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)

These are railroad junctions that have been mislabeled as "unincorporated communities", have little to no coverage beyond their existence as a railroad landmark and do not have a suitable redirect target. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The articles should be developed, not deleted. Bagley Junction, Wisconsin in particular is already informative and well-sourced. The nominator is incorrect in stating that these are "mislabeled as 'unincorporated communities'" because they are all indexed by USGS as a "Community ... that is not a[n] ... incorporated place." The nominator appears to have compiled a laundry list of places in Wisconsin ending in Junction rather than focusing on any particular article. Doremo (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doremo: GNIS classification isn't alone sufficient to establish that a place is or ever has been a community. Based on the work I've done sorting through these sorts of articles and researching the localities in question, many of them are not and never have been inhabited communities. For particularly obvious examples, see Flourney, California, K Flourney, California, D Flourney, California, and R Flourney, California. All of these are individual ranches that somehow ended up on GNIS as "communities", when it is patently obvious from a few quick google searches and a glance at google maps satellite view that they are not and never have been. Likewise, a railroad junction isn't a community. CJK09 (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography for some of the massive mess we are cleaning up of articles mass-produced in the mistaken belief that the GNIS is accurate in its classifications and confers automatic notability. If "the nominator is incorrect" then WP:PROVEIT! Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate on my WP:BEFORE process. I look for one category that often shows up erroneously in GNIS, which in this case happens to be rail junctions. Starting with the full list of Wisconsin "junction" stubs, I eliminated any article that mentioned a post office, general store, CDP designation or anything else that might show evidence of a settlement. I then checked topo maps, Google Books and newspapers.com for any amount of significant coverage beyond its existence as a rail junction. Out of the remaining articles, I merged any that were clearly associated with a nearby town and nominated the rest for deletion. Good luck finding any coverage of an actual settlement at any of these locations. The "unincorporated community" label appears to be original research; it's not supported by GNIS which typically uses "populated place". This is concerning because our descriptions show up on Google Maps, indicating that Wikipedia is creating and propagating misinformation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: The "unincoporated" label refers to Wisconsin municipal code. Basically, any community that is not incorporated as city or a village under Wisconsin law is an "unincorporated community." -- Dolotta (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but we shouldn't be the ones to apply that designation, that would be OR. Somebody went through the GNIS database and made "unincorporated community" articles for every "populated place" without verifying the existence of communities at these locations. As Reywas pointed out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington is a prime example of why GNIS is not a reliable source for these labels since they routinely include uninhabited rail junctions as "populated places". –dlthewave ☎ 13:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Why would it be OR to apply a definition made by the state when that is the legal definition? Which definition should be used for unincorporated places in Wisconsin other than the one used by the municipal code? Who decides what is applied and what is that based on? Djflem (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete all There is no evidence that any of these are or ever were "communities"; GNIS does not constitute such evidence, as it has too many mistakes. Examination of the topo maps which are GNIS's sources doesn't show any communities, and while there is a fair bit of text in the Bagley Junction article, all of it is either just the GNIS text elaborated, or a rather drawn-out explanation of where the name came from. None of the other goes beyond a GNIS dump. If you can show that they are notable as rail junctions, go ahead. But they are not communities. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Bagley junction is also just a railroad junction, not a community, see topo and sources in its article. The rest of that article reads as a WP:REFBOMB and does not establish why a generic railroad junction is notable, though some of that history could go in Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad or a Railroads of Wisconsin. Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear what the see topo link above indicates; on the topographic map Bagley Junction is marked in the same font and size as the neighboring community of Porterfield, and the map shows a small cluster of houses at Bagley Junction. Doremo (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also in the same font as the Phillips Sch[ool], Sandberg Sch, and St Matthews Ch[urch] nearby, but in a smaller font than the actual towns of Peshtigo and Porterfield.
Consider them individually: I don't know about the rest of the locations, but Bagley Junction is widely mentioned in newspapers as a community where people lived or where they were from; for example, here ("her home at Bagley Junction", "moved to Bagley Junction"), here ("the 'mayor of Bagley Junction'", a jocular title), and here ("Leo Saduski, of Bagley Junction"). The locale is referred to like any other small community, and this list should be addressed on a per-case basis. Doremo (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for in fact now proving it as requested as a locale. Whether it's really a notable community is another question, as the neighborhood near the junction (GEOLAND2) can be covered with its township Porterfield, Wisconsin, but perhaps best to exclude this one. Mass-creator did not make these on a per-case basis so best not to waste on time on thousands of such one-liners individually. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foster Junction is probably another that should be excluded from the laundry list. Callary's Place Names of Wisconsin (page 98) refers to it as a community and provides additional history on its establishment and decline. Doremo (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep Bagley Junction for sure and I'd give the others their due individually. For instance, Laona Junction had a depot that could be covered [1] [2] and at least one person is mentioned as being from there in this, er, public interest story [3] and [4], it was also the destination of a tourist train in the 1960s and would be a valid stub. [5] These deletions are getting unwieldy. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All Except Bagley -- I would merge them with the municipality in which they are located. If more information is located later, the article can be recreated. For a large proportion of these places, significant information is generally lacking. -- Dolotta (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chicago Junction to Spooner, Wisconsin. According to this newspaper clipping, Chicago Junction was an early name for the town that became Spooner. (No opinion on the rest until I do more research.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bagley Junction per the sources found by Doremo, which establish pretty convincingly that it's an actual community and not just a railroad junction that was misclassified as one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Laona Junction. In addition to the sources found by Doremo, there's this article which says it was a mill town in addition to being a railroad junction, and a small piece of local news about a resident. (Plus quite a few sources about the railroad, compared to the other junctions that have come up at AfD.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing here is a bit ambiguous (are the mills in Laona or Laona Junction?), but if they were located "a short distance from the C&NW Road" then they would have been in Laona which was on the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. The majority of sources simply mention it as a railroad landmark, e.g. "between Laona and Laona Junction", which doesn't demonstrate the existence of a community or meet the level of in-depth coverage that would met GNG. A significant number of the newspaper hits are reprints of this, which describes a snowmobile trail "starting in Laona at Junction 32", completely unrelated to Laona Junction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foster Junction. In addition to Place Names of Wisconsin, this article mentions a family who lived there, and there are multiple stories about hunting near Foster Junction [6] [7]. (Failing that, merge it with Mellen, Wisconsin, which it was very close to.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the other three. I was able to confirm that they were all real locations, but I couldn't find evidence that any of them were more than railroad junctions. (Though Wisconsin Junction was really hard to search for, so if anyone finds better sources about it, please ping me.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boylston Junction. Gmaps does not show nothing as claimed, there is a sprinkling of buildings there. An article in Defenders says "Wolves will often cross roads amd move through fairly densely populated areas. One female was seen at 2pm at a gas station in Boylston Junction, Wisconsin." The context implies that this is a populated area. It at least has a gas station. This book says "Today, Boylston is Bylston Junction..." implying that they are synonyms and a redirect is in order. The map pin for Boylston, Wisconsin is almost the same location, just the other side of the junction. The same source also says, "David Zearley was an old man of 73-74 when he left Iowa for Boylston, Wisconsin, to live with his son and grandson..." So at least three people once lived there. Perhaps because it has a convenient gas station. SpinningSpark 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge any that have been shown to definitely exist, but cannot sustain a standalone page. Merge all information per WP:PRESERVE, including the coodinates. SpinningSpark 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bagley, Foster, and Laona because they have signs of being real. Especially keep Foster as it once was a populated place but now a ghost town. Redirect others to the town articles and merge content into it (if any content). I have encountered some Michigan and Colonial East Coast states use the redirect method for short articles. On a side note, Forest Junction started as an railroad intersection in the woods and grew into a community - so it is possible that some of these rail intersections might become notable in the future. Royal broil 15:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I went ahead and struck Foster Junction since it's been shown to be an actual, if short-lived, community. I'm aware of minor coverage and the existence of buildings at some of the other locations, but I don't see anything that would meet WP:GEOLAND. Populated places that lack official recognition would need to pass WP:GNG. I'm not convinced that someone being "from" there or the fact that it was a destination for hunters are sufficient to establish these as distinct, notable communities. –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GEOLAND does not say that a place must be incorporated before we have to rely on GNG, it says "legally recognized" which is not quite the same thing. A place can be legally recognized without it having a town council. SpinningSpark 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we've had discussion on the talk page if the presence of a post office or naming of a census-designated place is "legal recognition" and neither was conclusive – the law isn't involved! The talk archives suggest that enumeration in the census would count, and the page once noted that this would indeed vary by country, but this term is never defined and several concerns were raised in the RFC to adopt. It's very vague and should be revised. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep and merge - keep Boylston junction and merge the junctions which are not communities into a single other new article. As noted above there are populated areas that can only be considered part of the junction.Grmike (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
keep with with no prejudice for re-nom individually. Appears in insufficient Wikipedia:BEFORE was conducted, making this nomination too complex and confusing to properly evaluate.Djflem (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two of these appear to be notable. The others would need to be re-nominated individually. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all individually - It's so hard to tell what belongs in a bundle AfD, and this might just be on the line of not belonging. I would relist these individually so people can comment and give sources or just say delete on each article. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:38, 4 May 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.