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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millburne, Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of a notable community here; article is sourced only to maps. BEFORE search returned passing mentions regarding road construction, a cemetery and other miscellany but nothing that would establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Wyoming finds the community sufficiently notable to maintain a nearly 4-mile (6.4 km) state highway with the primary purpose of serving the community. (Also, sources other than maps have been added.) An Errant Knight (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Highway 411 is just a very ordinary two-lane blacktop road and anyway just having a road does not indicate notability. A map does not show notability. The new sources added are:

• GNIS - unreliable feature descriptions, doesn't show notability.
• findagrave.com - unreliable, user-generated content, anyway doesn't give any significant coverage.
• blacksforkriverlodge.com - a hotel website and not a reliable, independent source. Notably it does not appear to mention Millburne at all.
  

Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Finding a decent amount in the archive, for instance [1] [2] [3]. Born in Millburne. Clearly an actual town and not just a rail siding. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy - Every one of those is a pure bare mention, not significant coverage that could be used to show a GNG pass. Simply being an "actual town" (i.e., a location on the map) is not a keep argument, because Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and does not host bare gazetteer listings. In more detail:

• This story just mentions Milburne as a location where 4 farmers got a loan, and says nothing about Milburne beyond that. Even if you take this as SIGCOV, multiple instances of SIGCOV are needed for a GNG pass.
• This story mentions Milburne saying that a bridge would be built near to, i.e., just describing the nearest location to where the bridge would be built. It says nothing about Milburne.
• This describes a future party that was going to be held in Milburne, according to people there. It says nothing about Milburne and isn't even confirmation that the party actually happened. It's basically an advert for the party and not reliable, independent, coverage.
• An obituary that simply mentions Milburne as a place of birth. It says nothing about Milburne. Let's also recall that obituaries of non-famous people like this one are sourced to the family of the deceased and so are not reliable, independent coverage. Milburne may well simply have been the nearest named location to where this person was born.

• One of the several purposes of Wikipedia is as a gazetteer, it simply is not MERELY a gazetteer. So we have a low bar for notability for towns/settlements, because they generally are presumed to have some coverage, even if before the internet era. This bar does not include rail sidings and GNIS-defined "locales" however. As you can see here, Millburn had a population of 149 in 1930 and 161 in 1940, so a small town but reporting census figures. Seems to be some coverage here but I cannot access. Same here. So nit seems there is enough to work with for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it ever decided that Wikipedia suddenly becomes something other than an encyclopaedia when we are writing about geographical locations? There is a very strong consensus that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There is no consensus on Wikipedia at present that it is something else. As you say, the reason for GEOLAND#1 is that we presume that, for populated places with legal recognition (e.g., incorporated towns/cities, not for a place like Milburne) the sources will exist to write an encyclopaedic article, not that we are just OK with Wikipedia being a database of bare gazetteer listings - because Wikipedia is not a database.

The census source above is for the census-tract of which Milburne was part (Uinta county's "district 8" on p. 1187) . Census-tracts are excluded from proving notability under WP:GEOLAND, the wisdom of which is shown in the description of p.1187 in its description of how the districts of Uinta were simply chopped and changed all the time. The book is another bare mention ("Mr. and Mrs. Henry both homesteaded in the Robertson and Milburne, Wyoming areas") - we cannot write an encyclopaedia article that basically states the names of completely non-notable people who were born/lived/died in a place and nothing else. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gazetteer notes WP:NGEO guidelines before 2012 were less strict. – The Grid (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep absolutely a community, with some newspaper coverage as far away as Casper, a cemetery, clear census records showing it passes GEOLAND, multiple streets at its location on the map, and a state highway that leads directly there. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing any coverage that would indicate notability. Yilloslime (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the expansion work done after the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep established community per refs. Djflem (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A lot of "but of course there's sources" without any actual sources giving significant coverage or showing legal recognition having been added to the article. Simply being a "community" or an "established community" does not make it notable. A man named Fisher lived there - not significant coverage of Milburne. A mormon station was at the same site - not significant coverage of Milburne. There was a census-tract that covered the same area - not significant coverage of Milburne or proof of legal recognition. Some sources about the water-quality of Blackfork river - not significant coverage of Milburne. Some maps - not significant coverage of Milburne. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage in sources is not detailed, however it is sufficient to establish that a community existed. Therefore I believe the location just scrapes by to meet WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:04, 25 December 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.