Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Dick Crossing, Washington

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Dick Crossing, Washington

[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)

Please provide evidence this is an unincorporated community. I cannot find anything establishing notability, other than Yelp's autogenerated page that phrases that there are restaurants in this uninhabited river crossing. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The USGS classifies this location as a populated place[1]. It lies within the
WP:GEOLAND. - Mr X 🖋 22:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- As shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and many others, the GNIS is a blatantly unreliable source for its "populated place" classification. This does not grant automatic notability. It appears to be a creek crossing at the Willy Dick Canyon (Topo map, BGN listing of Canyon) and the mass-produced "is an unincorporated community" is simply false. I cannot find evidence to support notability of either the crossing or canyon: "Probably" doesn't cut it! Reywas92^Talk 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found literally nothing in newspaper archive searches, which strongly suggests this was never a legally recognised populated place.----Pontificalibus 09:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a name from a topo quad, by all evidence (including GNIS itself), but looking at both the quad and the GMaps aerial, there's no there there and likely never was. GNIS is just not reliable enough to serve as a sole source for "populated places", never mind that their description of the term includes lots of things which wouldn't be held notable per se. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides a notably humorous name, there is not enough RS. Fails
WP:GEOLAND Wm335td (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I would say redirect to Willy Dick Canyon if that were notable, but it isn't either. While searching, I did find at least one other Wikipedia has a Willy Dick Canyon article. Apparently, the Cebuano WP has different notability standards for natural features. MB 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a populated, legally recognized place on GNIS, so it is presumed notable, per
WP:GEOLAND. It's like a pro-baseball player who played just one inning in the 1920s and has literally no biographic info. Regardless, a consensus of editors have agreed articles like these are presumed notable. As well, Willy Dick Crossing was added to this 2009 map showing lands ceded to the Yakama Nation. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- No, you are wrong. No one lives there and there is no evidence anyone ever has. As demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. the GNIS's classifications are unreliable: it frequently applies an incorrect classification, and this is not legal recognition like incorporation or counting in the census, rather a database of names on maps. Consensus per GEOLAND and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES is that cities, towns, and villages are notable, and subdivisions and neighborhoods require further sourcing. This is none of those, it is a crossing of a creek in a canyon with an unusual name. No idea what the point of your map is, it also has non-notable buttes, canyons, lookouts, etc. on it, not corroboration to your unfounded claim that this spot is populated. And delete the damn baseball players too. Reywas92^Talk 04:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I found it: In Washington Geographic Names, Book 2 by the USGS, Willy Dick Crossing is more properly listed as a "Locale". Per this example and the above, the online version of the GNIS should be ignored, its classifications, even when accurate and even when used in autogenerated sources, do not match our notability standards. Reywas92^Talk 05:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fail of
WP:GNG without SIGCOV neighborhoods areas and census tracts do not get kept. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither Willy Dick Canyon nor Crossing turn up any results in the combined Washington newspaper archives I have access to, covering 1980 to present day. Sounder Bruce 06:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This source describes Willy Dick as an "old logging site". Also, the State of Washington court system lists Willy Dick Crossing here. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this "cities"/counties page just exported a list of names from the GNIS, just like most of the pages you had found in Indiana – just because someone unknowingly put them all under a heading saying "City" (which is actually a term for "legal recognition" of incorporated places) does not mean they are actually cities! For heaven's sake it even has Susie, Ruth, Geneva Junction, May Junction, and others that we have established are named railroad spurs and junctions at the Hanford Nuclear Site, not cities! And if you read the watershed source properly, it says four miles of the Willy Dick creek was monitored for steelhead between an old logging site and the confluence with Toppenish creek, not that Willy Dick itself is the site – as if a logging site is notable anyway! My god, this idea that anything in this map database with the wrong classification is automatically notable is utter lunacy. Reywas92^Talk 01:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per first vote. I am a strong proponent of keeping articles that meet
WP:GEOLAND. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- Do you care to explain to how it meets Geoland or will you just continue spouting nonsense? Do people live here? It is a town or village? Have you found evidence that it is or was a community? Reywas92^Talk 01:07, 14 January 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.