Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Junction, California

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 owing to insufficient coverage. Adequate reason to redirect to Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad has not been provided. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Junction, California[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)

This seems to be another example of a railroad junction mislabeled by GNIS as a populated place and extrapolated into a community by an overzealous editor. When we strip the general background information about the railroads and namesake railroad man, the only thing this article tells us is that this is where three railroads came together. None of the sources (aside from Hometown Locator) speak of a community, and newspaper sources about a wreck describe the location as "at Alameda and twenty-first street" [1] and "inside the city limits" (of Los Angeles) [2], descriptions that would not be used if this was a recognized community. –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and California. –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename>>Clement Junction (California). Djflem (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that the location is non-notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ with Vernon city, as it is not a place in its own right, per nom. and per my research which suggests that an area of Vernon City, LA is called Clement Junction[3]. This is not on Google maps and the labelling of a railway junction on some maps does not make it a legally recognised place - yet it falls within a possible definition of a populated place withouut legal recognition. Such can be taken on a case by case basis per WP:GEOLAND. In this case, however, the location is Vernon City. WP:GEOLAND allows that non legally recognised places can be considered notable so that a place that is not otherwise covered may be considered notable for an article. In this case the main article is Vernon city. For that reason, Merge with Vernon City makes sense considering there is a small amount of mergeable content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, are you familiar with WP:GNIS? A large number of locations (including railroad junctions) are mislabeled as "populated places" in the GNIS database, and many directory-style websites simply copied those listings and combined them with other publicly-available data. The source in the article, Hometownlocator, is notorious for this, and it appears that your source similarly lists streets near the junction with no verification of a distinct populated place with that name. In fact it seems that the only sources that mention this as a populated place are ones that scraped their data from GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and yes, on that basis then, this becomes ~~Delete~~ Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below, where I agree that the new direction that asserts this is about the railroad allows a redirect and merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a railroad junction with a small rail yard (8 tracks) in the middle of an industrial area of L.A. It is not and almost certainly never was a populated place and the content in the article is almost entirely irrelevant to the purported subject. It's possible the railroad facilities (past and/or present) here could be notable, but that would not be under this name and confers no notability to the junction itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rail facilities are covered at Redondo Junction, California which eliminates any possibility this article is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this may not necessarily be a significant “populated place” today, if you read the text of the entry you will see why it was quite significant in the early history of the development of railroad infrastructure, freight, and passenger service in the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century. It was the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 and its expansion down to Southern California from the San Francisco Bay Area in the decades immediately following which made this junction an important element in enabling the development of the economy of Los Angeles as well as intercity passenger service to and from the city. The influence of railroads and their influence on every element of the state’s economy and growth was second to none as it connected two thirds of the nation’s Pacific coast to the remaining states and territories located East of California-Oregon-Washington. Rails cut te time it took to mark a journey from the East Coast from as much as 4 to 6 months by sailing ship around Aouth America and Cape Horn to 4 to 6 days via rail. It was key junctions like this one that were essential to making that whole integrated system work and therefore its history deserves to be remembered, recognized and respected. Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but doesn't demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten the lede and body to reflect the historic importance of the establishment of this key rail junction in 1876 to provide the first direct rail access for the Port of Los Angeles (and all of Southern California) to the US transcontinental rail network and have removed all references to Clement Junction as a “populated place” which should cure what appears to have been the sole issue raised about this entry which has otherwise existed on Wikipedia without objection for 14 years. Centpacrr (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't meet GNG, and the amount of time an article has existed means nothing other than nobody has noticed it didn't meet GNG until now. If you'd like to see what a notable railroad facility's article looks like, consider an article like Cedar Hill Yard, which has many references covering it in significant detail, which is not the case with this article. If this junction cannot be shown to meet GNG, it will be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr:I think the story may be in Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad, which is definitely a redirect/merge target (after renaming for to convention for junctions). Djflem (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that “notability” is a completely subjective judgement. While Clement Junction may not be especially “notable” for what it is now, it certainly is for the major historical impact it had on the development of Los Angeles as a major economic engine for the nation at the time of its establishment in 1876 to provide the first means of connecting the Port of Los Angeles as a second major port in the state to the still young (opened in May,1869) first transcontinental rail system (via the “Pacific Railroad”) and thereby the entire country while also revealing the identity of the key figure (engineer Lewis M. Clement) in the design and construction of both the Ogden, UT to San Francisco (1862-69) and San Francisco to Los Angeles (1869-76) grades of the Central Pacific Railroad whose name that both the junction and the surrounding 1.8 sqmi section of Los Angeles that is the home to almost 17,000 people still carry after 153 years. Centpacrr (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is bound to be some subjectivity in evaluation of notability, but the guidelines are designed to be objective. The key consideration is whether there is sufficient coverage in WP:RS to allow an encylopaedic article to be written on the subject. Sometimes things may not really be notable for their own page but they are part of a bigger story, which is why User:Djflem suggests a redirect andmerge to a location where sourced material about this junction can be included in a page talking about the fuller story of th erailroad.

My delete !vote was based on the erroneous page here that claimed this was a populated place. It is not, so that delete !vote was right, however, on the basis you have now accepted this is a part of a railroad story, I am happy with redirect/merge to Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad where your work can be preserved and curated into an article that places it in the context it deserves. I will strike my delete above. But just to be clear, I do not see any evidence of significant coverage for an article in its own right, and nor did I find any when I carried out searches on this subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While this is certainly not the most important entry on he Wikipedia project, it is also not capricious either as provides historical perspective to an important element in the development of California’s transportation infrastructure associated exclusively with this junction established 153 years ago as the first connection by rail of the Port of Los Angeles to the rest of the nation. Centpacrr (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources say that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles require citations that provide significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. You don't seem to understand that the Wikipedia concept of notability is different than the dictionary definition. You're not going to persuade anyone like this. Plenty of things from a long time ago are still notable in the Wikipedia sense, but this isn't. You have not provided even a single example of significant coverage of this location, and therefore I stand by my delete vote. Your arguments are heavy on emotion and totally lacking in substance, I'm afraid. Plenty of past and present railroad locations are notable, but again, that is shown through significant coverage in reliable independent sources and you've failed to identify any. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not provide significant coverage needed to establish notability. The Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad is historic, but I see no evidence that this mere junction should be described that way, much less in its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)\[reply]

Whatever the subjective level of “notability”, there are apparently still those in the community who find value in this 14-year old entry as it has been visited and viewed almost 1,900 times in the last 12 months. Centpacrr (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear where you got that. It got a mere 181 views in the year before it was nominated (roughly Special:Random level) (not that pageviews – and certainly not time it's languished with false info calling it a community – are any basis to keep whatsoever anyway). Not a word in the sources actually talks about the junction, so it should be deleted, or you can transfer some of it to the main railroad article. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they had the Agent set to All instead of User, so it was picking up all of the bots and search engine crawlers. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to have to be bound by its policies and guidelines. Quite frankly, nobody cares how attached you are to the article. If you think it's so important, you're more than welcome to start your own website about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number comes from “Pageview Analysis” [4] which for the period from Jan., 2021 to July, 2022, the page had 1,866 views and averaged 98 views per month. Centpacrr (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are reaching levels of WP:IDHT I didn't even think were possible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2022 (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.