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.
So, this was never really a town, just a stop on the railroad. As is indicated in the article text, the only real notable thing here was the Lawing homestead and roadhouse, which now has it’s own article that is more substantial than this one. See discussion on talkpage, we haven’t even been able to firmly establish where this is/was, and what town or CDP it is in now, because of the scarcity of references to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alaska Nellie's Homestead. Since we never did find much more to Lawing than the homestead and its railway stop, and the homestead has an article now, it seems reasonable to cover everything in the article about the homestead. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 01:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Switching to Keep. The note about postal history, which I missed the first time around, is compelling. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 14:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at WP:GEOLAND, particularly "Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history", this would appear to be an easy keep !vote. GNIS lists it as a populated place. The GNIS entry states: "Listed as a station in The Alaska RR. guide of 1925. Recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps indicate a site of six or seven buildings". One of those sources that Beeblebrox appears to imply doesn't exist or is not very important to note is the history of Alaska post offices compiled by Melvin Ricks (a credible historian, not some hack website writer) and published in 1965. In that work (page 39), we see that Lawing had its own post office from 1924 to 1929 and 1932 to 1936. These facts alone show that it passes the threshold expected of independently notable populated places. Beeblebrox's rationale appears to imply that its present-day location is all that really matters, which I don't believe is at all compatible with the way things work. Common sense says that a merge/redir is not harmful, but neither is keeping the article. Regardless, it won't do anything about the countless thousands of other geostubs which exist to relentlessly parrot a particular MoS and/or particular sources but not to deliver useful information to readers. The target is also suspect, as Nellie Neal Lawing is just as likely a target in this case. I would hesitate in merging it to yet another NRHP permastub. We already spend too much effort subtly pushing the POV that a place is notable because of its NRHP listing but not necessarily because of anything that occurred in its history which led up to that listing, to the point where in many cases we're creating a directory of listings more than creating encyclopedic content. I didn't come here to gratuitously promote the NRHP, but you couldn't necessarily say the same about other editors judging from their contributions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "six or seven buildings" that form this populated populated place are the homestead.[1] This is an extreme example of the USGS definitions of U6 and "populated place," a place with permanent residential buildings not part of an incorporated city or town. We have a populated place of one homestead. Calling it a settlement is a long stretch without more supporting evidence. As for the homestead NRHP article, the NRHP nomination and listing indicate the article has potential to be more than a permastub. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're going to keep pushing NRHP-centered sources and an NRHP-centered perspective immediately after I point out that such may be problematic and that other reliable sources exist? That sounds like you're trying to create a wiki-within-a-wiki to me. Going to the source you link to, I see the following at the bottom of the narrative: "The name 'Lawing' was selected for the post office; it was so listed in subsequent travel guides and maps. It was the second of two locations on the railroad ever named after an individual." BZZZZZT!!! Quite a few of the sections and stops along the railroad route were named for individuals, mostly members of Congress who supported the legislation which created the railroad, such as Pittman (today Meadow Lakes, named for Key Pittman) and Curry. The refinery siding in North Pole was renamed in honor of Frank Chapados, so "ever" isn't correct, either. I didn't find a copy of Alaska Nellie offhand (mine's in storage somewhere), but a lesser source I dug up (tourist guide to the railroad route which is sold on the train) claims that Lawing and Roosevelt are two separate places one-fifth of a mile apart, which isn't in lockstep with the NRHP nomination's narrative, either. Regardless, I find it inconceivable that Roosevelt was named for anything other than Theodore Roosevelt, but I've not seen anything which explicitly states such. That lesser source also states that all that is left of Lawing is an airstrip, which coincides with the narrative's description of something more resembling a collection of ruins than a collection of structures, and that document appears to have been written during the 1970s. That means that there's another possible target for a redirect, namely List of ghost towns in Alaska. The narrative's description, plus what is known elsewhere about the homestead, makes it extremely hard to believe that Nellie ran the whole thing entirely by herself. That means that a community of some sort existed around the homestead at least while it was in active operation, which brings us back to the issue of considering it as a functioning community and not trying to place it into some other bizarro context. Anyway, if you're going to cherry-pick sources, you should at least take half an effort to ensure that they're factually correct and don't cause damage to the encyclopedia's reputation by mindlessly parroting them. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is clearly notable under the WP:GEOLAND policy. It was once populated, and officially designated, and notability is not temporary. Not only that, but the place is reliably sourced with the sources identified. I see no valid reason to merge it with whatever directory the NRHP listings represent. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia also serves as a gazetter; I agree with User:Ilyina Olya Yakovna-Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP insta-keep status as a populated place. The Alaska Museum at Rasmussen Center CONSIDERS IT A PLACE, who are we to argue? Carrite (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2018 (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.
