Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaniko Junction, Oregon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Shaniko, Oregon. There is no.clear consensus on target so no.objection to someone changing it. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaniko Junction, Oregon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shaniko Junction, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a highway junction which has been mislabeled as a "populated place" by GNIS. No evidence of a settlement here, much less a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dlthewave, I'd appreciate seeing any evidence you have that this is an erroneous listing in GNIS. Here are some images from Google earth that would seem to verify GNIS got it right, that Shaniko Junction actually is inhabited:

  1. Aerial view
  2. Buildings east of intersection
  3. Closeup, north buildings
  4. Buildings, mailbox on left
  5. Building with satellite dish
  6. Buildings behind drift fence
  7. Another view behind fence showing trailered boats
  8. Mobile home west of intersection
  9. Closer view of mobile home

In addition, I've clipped news articless from newpapers.com. The initial search returned 37 articles, with many only listing Shaniko Junction on a long list of raid conditions on snowy Oregon highways. I left those for roads scholoars, and clipped the following:

Chers! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also did a newspapers.com search and didn't find anything which wasn't directly related to it being a highway junction, with no evidence it's a populated place apart from being a highway junction landmark. That's why I think a redirect is proper here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shaniko, Oregon, because it seems to be an intersection within the town. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless nom provides evidence that it has been mislabeled as a "populated place" by GNIS. GNIS is a reliable source. Shaniko Junction is NOT an intersection within the town of Shaniko, Oregon, which is about 11 miles notheastof the intersection. It's actually much closer to Willowdale, Oregon, and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. See the USGS deatil page. Please also view the Google earth street view images in the links I provided in my comment above before you conclude GNIS miscategorized this populated place. Under WP:NGEO, Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNIS is notorious for mislabeling things as "populated places" and isn't considered a reliable source for that description. As confirmed by recent AfDs [1] [2] [3], the label seems to be applied to anything that doesn't fit into a predefined category such as "hill" or "lake" or "river"; this includes everything from industrial rail spurs to the headquarters of a park. But that's a moot point in this case because GNIS describes Shaniko Junction as a "locale". Somewhere along the line, someone changed the article to include "unincorporated community" which is entirely unsourced. Pointing to buildings on Google Streetview doesn't meet our verifiability requirements, and none of the newspaper articles give anything more than a passing mention. There's no sign what this is a "legally recognized populated place" so per WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT, a named highway junction would need to meet GNG which I don't believe this one does. –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: In [4] you said, Venturing a bit into OR territory, Google Maps shows that the rest are also located on railroad spurs or junctions. You thus used Google maps to verify no buildings at the sites of railroad junctions in that previous AfD. But for Shaniko Junction you reject the visible evidence that there are multiple buildings and at least one mailbox and a satellite dish viewable on Google earth? I'm not offering the Google earth images as evidence of notability, but rather as a common sense verification that the GNIS information is valid, not erroneous, and that it is in fact a "populated place", meeting WP:NGEO. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually classified as a "locale" by GNIS, which defines locale as Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill). (emphasis mine). My Google Street View research shows there's nothing in the vicinity which says you are entering Shaniko Junction, just a road junction, a house, and a pile of something that's been mined. We've also been going through and culling a lot of mass-created GNIS stubs of late, since the GNIS is just a database of anything that's ever appeared on a topography map, and because the United States treats towns different from other countries where land use occurs at the state or country/federal level. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I appreciae efforts to delete mass-produced GNIS-inspired stubs. But I think that's not what we are dealing with here. The article was created in 2010, and the original text identified it as "an unincorporated locale". This diff erroneously replaced locale with community in 2014.
The GNIS definitions were migrated from the old FIPS, the database used prior to the 2010 census which does list FIPS 41/66710 Shaniko Junction as "locale".
The MAF/TIGER (Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) database replaced FIPS after the 2010 census, and the term changed to "C3081 Locality point", defined as "A point that identifies the location and name of a locality (e.g., crossroad, community, populated place or locale) that usually does not have a formally established boundary". Shaniko junction is shown with class code U6 "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name."(emphasis mine) I was initially confused by the pileup of modifiers in that description, but then I compared it to the next class code, "U8 A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place that does not have an official federally recognized name". Clearly, the intent is to differentiate whether or not a populated place has a federally recognized name.
I think this locality point falls under WP:GEOLAND which says, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd appreciate comments of others on the questions of

Are FIPS and GNIS both wrong?

  • If so, perhaps a redirect to U.S. Route 197 (for which Shaniko Junction is the southern terminus), would be appropriate.

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Grand'mere Eugene: Sorry I'm the one who keeps coming up with comments here, but as I've noted above GNIS has been held to not meet the requirements of WP:GEOLAND - see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial, Arizona, where we had a GNIS populated place stub about a wash where no one has ever lived (got a little bit into the WP:OR weeds with that one, but it first appeared on a topo map after the highway was built. No structures were ever at that site using historic imagery.) There's lots of other similar examples where railway sidings are classified as communities because the GNIS is really a database of topographic map labeling and not a legally binding document. The only references I've seen to Shaniko Junction don't talk about it as a community but rather as the end point of US 187, unlike say Interlachen where there's plenty of sources showing that it's known as a community and is distinctly referred to by the county even though it's not incorporated. Hopefully someone other than me will come along and agree! SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to U.S. Route 197#Oregon, it's also the name of a 7.5 min. quadrangle, plausible search term. It's the name of a highway junction, the highway article which actually mentions is a better target than the town or county. fiveby(zero) 16:15, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaniko_Junction,_Oregon&oldid=956517735"