Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cache, Idaho

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.

Cache, Idaho

Cache, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having a great deal of trouble getting anything substantial about this, starting from the problem that the GNIS coordinates do not agree with the topos, but instead point to a spot in a field north and west of the topo location. The latter spot shows up on topos as a couple of building clusters which on aerials are shown to be a couple of farmsteads and which seem to have since been replaced with groups of houses. The old UP grade runs a bit to the east but I could not find evidence that this was a rail spot; I did find one reference to an LDS ward by this name but couldn't identify it with any particular structure here. I get a ton of juxtaposition false hits due to Cache County in Utah, and there's also a couple of geographical features which don't seem to have to do with this spot, so it's entirely possible I missed something, but I couldn't find anything that identified this as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Seems to be a recognized place. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These are the most casual mentions of casual mentions, but it appears that it was a prominent enough settlement that people would say "I'm from Cache, Idaho". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly a very obscure place, but I think it narrowly passes
  WP:GEOLAND for being recognized and populated (the USGS ref). In combination with it being mentioned as a birthplace in some books and the newspaper snippets @78.26 procured, I believe it is worth keeping. But I do not understand the issue with the coordinate mismatch – what are you referring to here with "topo" @Mangoe? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We have long since determined that GNIS doesn't constitute legal recognition, nor is it reliable about the character of a place; see

WP:GNIS for more information. I am puzzled by the population claims, and I have not got an idea where Rand McNally got the figures from. If someone knows a straightforward way to get figures by town out of old censuses, I'd be delighted to know. "Topo" is short for "topographic map", the USGS versions of which are the usual though not universal source of GNIS information. Small differences in the location of a label or common, but substantial shifts such as is the case here are rare, and tend to indicate some sort of mapping error. Last, I don't put too much stock into passing references that people are "from" somewhere. Such references do not characterize the place, and they are often inaccurate. When I was a kid, I would say to non-locals that I was "from" Laurel, MD, but I never lived in the city itself; even now, the post office claims that I am in a city which it actually takes me some twenty minutes to reach. Saying that Cache is an "unincorporated community" is essentially an admission that we don't know what it was, because the actual GNIS term is "populated place", and it covers lots of things besides towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The combination of post office and the newspaper clippings indicate that this is more than just a railroad post office, and the post office gives a form of legal recognition. I hear what you're saying about Laurel. On the other hand, it rather indicates that Laurel is indeed a populated community (not a subdivision, not a watering hole for cattle, etc.), even if it is unhelpful in defining the community. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Good to know, I wasn't aware of the issues with GNIS for small places. I'm no longer sure if it should be kept as a separate article then, but I also feel like the mentions of the post office and such should not simply be discarded. Is there a way to maybe merge this into the closest nearby locality, in this case probably Tetonia? I'm not aware of what the policy is here. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per
  WP:GEOLAND is thus met: multiple sources agree this was a populated place, a community. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 1 July 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.