- 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) 06:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Arbee, California ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This spot doesn't appear on topos until fairly late, I'm guessing mostly because they hadn't been updated. At any rate, it's exactly as the first GBooks hit on the name describes it: "a point on the Sacramento Northern Railway less than a mile east of Colusa". And that's what the topos show: a spur into some manufacturing concern, by that point sitting on the eastern edge of town. It's obvious this was never a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be more GNIS error junk. Hog Farm Bacon 01:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Note to closer, this article is part of a campaign of making many, many junk articles that the author carried out in 2009. They are all cited to GNIS (a bad source) and Durham (a potentially good source, but they've ignored how Durham actually describes these locations). We're ~300 AFDs in with thousands left to go. There is no need to relist these AFDs if they've received a delete !vote and doing so is just going to clog up AFD with relistings. FOARP ( talk) 12:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- In all fairness, back a decade ago it probably seemed like a good idea to make a lot of articles from what seemed at the time to be reliable sources. The problem is with the follow-through: in the end, someone has to go through and take all these stubs and try to turn them into something substantial—or try to get rid of them. Either way, a lot of work is involved, which was sloughed onto someone else.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about that Mangoe, the author in question had already been an admin for two years at the time they made this article (their RFA was in 2007) and carried on making articles like them until ~last year. It was pointed out at the time to them that GNIS was not a great source. I assume making thousands of articles like this was good faith at the start but we've ended up with counties in California with 3 times more "ghost towns" (in reality, "never-were towns") than inhabited locations - surely they should have realised at some point that this wasn't a good idea? I guess that's all water under the bridge at this point though, and you're right that they've basically sloughed all this work off onto other people and now we have to deal with it. My proposal is to apply WP:TNT to the worst of these articles (i.e., the ones that are GNIS/Durham only) since this is basically the epitome of a TNT situation - rescuing anything from these articles is way more work than just deleting the lot and recreating the few that might be worth recreating (assuming there are any). FOARP ( talk) 18:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- In all fairness, back a decade ago it probably seemed like a good idea to make a lot of articles from what seemed at the time to be reliable sources. The problem is with the follow-through: in the end, someone has to go through and take all these stubs and try to turn them into something substantial—or try to get rid of them. Either way, a lot of work is involved, which was sloughed onto someone else.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) 06:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Arbee, California ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This spot doesn't appear on topos until fairly late, I'm guessing mostly because they hadn't been updated. At any rate, it's exactly as the first GBooks hit on the name describes it: "a point on the Sacramento Northern Railway less than a mile east of Colusa". And that's what the topos show: a spur into some manufacturing concern, by that point sitting on the eastern edge of town. It's obvious this was never a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be more GNIS error junk. Hog Farm Bacon 01:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Note to closer, this article is part of a campaign of making many, many junk articles that the author carried out in 2009. They are all cited to GNIS (a bad source) and Durham (a potentially good source, but they've ignored how Durham actually describes these locations). We're ~300 AFDs in with thousands left to go. There is no need to relist these AFDs if they've received a delete !vote and doing so is just going to clog up AFD with relistings. FOARP ( talk) 12:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- In all fairness, back a decade ago it probably seemed like a good idea to make a lot of articles from what seemed at the time to be reliable sources. The problem is with the follow-through: in the end, someone has to go through and take all these stubs and try to turn them into something substantial—or try to get rid of them. Either way, a lot of work is involved, which was sloughed onto someone else.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about that Mangoe, the author in question had already been an admin for two years at the time they made this article (their RFA was in 2007) and carried on making articles like them until ~last year. It was pointed out at the time to them that GNIS was not a great source. I assume making thousands of articles like this was good faith at the start but we've ended up with counties in California with 3 times more "ghost towns" (in reality, "never-were towns") than inhabited locations - surely they should have realised at some point that this wasn't a good idea? I guess that's all water under the bridge at this point though, and you're right that they've basically sloughed all this work off onto other people and now we have to deal with it. My proposal is to apply WP:TNT to the worst of these articles (i.e., the ones that are GNIS/Durham only) since this is basically the epitome of a TNT situation - rescuing anything from these articles is way more work than just deleting the lot and recreating the few that might be worth recreating (assuming there are any). FOARP ( talk) 18:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- In all fairness, back a decade ago it probably seemed like a good idea to make a lot of articles from what seemed at the time to be reliable sources. The problem is with the follow-through: in the end, someone has to go through and take all these stubs and try to turn them into something substantial—or try to get rid of them. Either way, a lot of work is involved, which was sloughed onto someone else.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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.