Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitch Creek Cow Camp, 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.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Creek Cow Camp, Idaho[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)

Both sources refer to Bitch Creek, not whatever was here – likely a ranch as on 1965 topo. Zero newspapers.com hits for this locale, not "an unincorporated community" as originally claimed. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article only stated "unincorporated community" for a few days after creation in 2012 and was corrected to "unincorporated locale" after the previous AfD deletion which was rebuffed with the comment "rem. prod. being on a map is the notability req. for a place". Indeed there appear to be quite a few other "unincorporated locale"s on Wikipedia. Are newspapers.com hits a listed criterion for notability? The locale is on the USGS map at https://www.mytopo.com/locations/index.cfm?fid=377708 and also listed in their survey at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rsbiAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA40&lpg=RA3-PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false Harami2000 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harami2000, unfortunately a GNIS entry is not sufficient to prove notability. Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)#GNIS_database. One problem is that the GNIS definition for populated place is not sufficient for notability, see WP:GEOLAND. Another issue is that GNIS includes things like railroad crossings and non-notable ranches. (BTW - to search the GNIS database, see https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq . Once you have the GNIS number, you can use the GNIS template {{GNIS2|377708}} ends up looking like: [1], see Template:GNIS.) I think one thing that happened is that editors saw the GNIS as an unquestioning source of articles so many articles were created. Unfortunately, like getting married and then getting divorced, creating an article is much easier than deleting the article. Per WP:GEOLAND#2, Newspapers.com hits that are non-trivial coverage can be helpful to show notability. We had a discussion about whether having a Post Office was sufficient. It seems like a good WP:BEFORE methodology here is to look through newspapers.com and/or newspaperarchive.com (free accounts are available for Wikipedians). For US states, looking for a book about place names can also help. Through my library, I have access the EBSCO Masterlist, which has magazines including regional magazines that could have non-trivial coverage. Cxbrx (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) That PROD removal rationale is blatantly false: WP:NGEO says “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.“ Yes, the USGS topo maps used to be pretty comprehensive and mark every Joe Schmo’s ranch and water tank and whatnot but that doesn’t mean we need articles on them. A locale is quite broad (including ranches) and like anything else requires significant coverage per WP:GNG, which this lacks. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Searching on this one produces geo-clickbait results that are scanty even by foreign locale standards, much less US. The only book hits are two gazetteers. A 1960-era aerial photo shows a house on the site which is now gone. No evidence this was every anything but a ranch. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this ranch was ever actually notable, back when it was a functioning ranch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 17 March 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.