Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitcairn, North Dakota

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. Absent legal recognition, places should meet WP:GNG, which this place seemingly does not. RL0919 (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pitcairn, North Dakota

[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)

According to GNIS, Pitcairn sat just to the left of the tracks about 150 feet from where the photographer appears to have stood for the image gracing the article, and the only other structures in the vicinity are a house just out of the picture to the right, and the apparatus of railroad crossing signals and gates. Going backwards through the topos doesn't show much more, but they do show a siding at this point, and the only reference I could find that addressed this spot indicated it was established as a shipping point. It does not describe Pitcairn as a town, either. Searching is buried in chance juxtapositions both with the mutineers' island and with another town in another state, so my confidence in that is a bit low. On the other hand, having looked at a lot of these ND rail towns, the vast majority have a quite characteristic pattern of at least two or three square blocks defined by streets, usually aligned with the rails; and the streets are quite persistent even when there are no town buildings left. There is no trace of that here. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I started to contribute to Wikipedia with researching and writing articles, I thought Wikipedia served as a gazetteer. Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer (my essay). Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. The other places called "Pitcairn" make the search a bit complicated but there is nothing on GBooks, Google, internet archive, JStor, or Newspapers.com for "Pitcairn, North Dakota". The intention of the article creator is not a keep-reason, but shows that Wikipedia really needs to be clearer on the question of whether Wikipedia is or is not a Gazetteer, and an RFC should probably be held at WP:NOT to clarify this. Frankly I find their confusion understandable given how often people on here talk (wrongly) as though there is a consensus that Wikipedia is a gazetteer - there is not and never has been any such consensus. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be just a rail siding, no evidence of legal recognition or sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The WP:GEOLAND guideline has had consensus for nearly a decade and takes precedence over individual editors' claims that "Wikipedia is a gazetteer". Even if we do keep this article, what can we possibly write about this location? GNIS is not a reliable source for "populated place" or "unincorporated community", so all we can really say is "Pitcairn is a place in Richland County, North Dakota". –dlthewave ☎ 23:04, 16 January 2022 (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.