The result was keep. North America 1000 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft"
, especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
As for "my subjective opinion"
, when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
So, @ Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
"an authoritative source"as you put it?
"I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After
User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. North America 1000 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Disputed PROD. Non-notable location with little information found. Satellite image of coordinates does show a cluster of small buildings surrounded by desert, suggesting this may be a populated place; however, without any legal recognition, it fails WP:GEOLAND. All mentions found have been passing, confirming that this is a place, but without further information nothing can be said. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
As for "keep" or "delete", recent AfD decisions for obscure California locations have been inconsistent. !voters have kept places with no historically mapped indication of habitation and deleted other places with 500 residents. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 05:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that failure to consult these and current satellite imagery is, in fact, "totally wrongheaded and daft"
, especially when these resources are highly reliable and readily available.
As for "my subjective opinion"
, when I count houses, I'd say that's hardly subjective.
Note that I don't say "fly-in" community is a basis for notability -- in fact I used visual evidence and old maps to debunk the assertion.
As for "keep" or "delete", I have not cast a !vote -- I've simply presented information.
So, @ Uncle G, aside from taking potshots at me, what's your take on this place? And why? What are your sources? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
”totally wrongheaded and daft”. Now you’re using a Rand McNally atlas? What’s up with that? — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 21:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
We don't know what the thing is. We know from long experience that Carlossuarez46 just made up things, perhaps helpfully intended (in the knowledge that "unincorporated community" is meaningless when you are saying it in hundreds of thousands of data-dump articles) but still outright made up from whole cloth. So the obvious approach is not to squint at photographs and guess and tell us how something is "bleak" and "scruffy", but to consult a gazetteer. They tell us what things on maps are.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion here is very interesting but I see fewer editors have weighed in with an opinion on what should happen with this article. We have two rather weak Keeps, a Delete and a Redirect suggestion. I'm not counting "votes", just stating where consensus stands right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
"an authoritative source"as you put it?
"I do think maps, photography and satellite imagery should be part of the mix in evaluating these places.". Each AfD is a puzzle to solve and we all bring different pieces.
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."
"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. After
User:Milowent's latest comment, I think Redirection might be a suitable outcome but closures are based on consensus, not the closer's opinion. Milowent, are you still standing by your Keep opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)