Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahlgren Junction, Virginia

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. Sandstein 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlgren Junction, Virginia[edit]

[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)

According to this source "Dahlgren Junction is an intermediate location (siding) on the Carrier's main line 60.7 miles north of Richmond, Virginia, and 51.1 miles south of Washington, D. C." The carrier in question was the RF&P, and the location in question is still a junction, now embedded in the great suburban sprawl of No. Virginia; the branch line was (obviously) the line that led out to Dahlgren, the east end of which is now the Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail. Other than a completely spurious assertion that some airplanes were destroyed there (no, the base in question is in Dahlgren itself), searching produces railroad-related material and the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite claims that GNIS is not reliable, it's the official source in the United States for legally recognizing populated places. We have to rely on sources here as to what's a populated place and what isn't, not original research and speculation based on satellite imagery or other things. As such, it satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whatever the official status of GNIS actually is (and my understanding is that its authority is limited to which name to use), as I've already said once, a .gov domain doesn't make it accurate, and to be reliable, a source has to be right. There are too many manifest mistakes in GNIS to take its assertions as to the nature of a spot at face value, and it is just not reasonable to take mention in an omnium gatherum gazetteer compilation as denoting any notability at all— which, I would point out, WP:GEOLAND already likewise discounts. And for what is also the nth time, I must point out that GNIS's use of "populated place" doesn't mean anything more than "there was some human activity here." GNIS does not claim that this junction was a place that ever a resident population; their classification is entirely consistent, within their terminology, with this being just a rail junction. And therefore the expectation would be that it is a notable rail junction, which you aren't effectively asserting. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please stop spewing utter nonsense, GNIS is not legal recognition, it is a context-free database of names that have appeared on maps ("This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject."), frequently misclassified as "populated places", and when accurate inconsistent with our guidelines. This very example is one of these misclassifications: Virginia Geographic Names (the book version of the GNIS and more obviously "various tables") properly calls it a locale! The original research was mass-creating thousands of pages without finding corroborating and significant coverage for WP:V and WP:N. This is a railroad junction, consistent with sources [1][2][3]; no mentions calling it a community. Reywas92^Talk 00:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this was ever anything more than a rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 00:30, 22 April 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.