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.
There is a
Blue Mountain in California, but it is two counties away, and I have searched the entire length of Licking Fork and not found anything that could possibly be this place, nor can I find a text reference that is definitely about such a place. Plainly not notable.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. Guess what? It had a
post office. Yes, others don't agree with me that this fulfills legal recognition of
WP:GEOLAND. The
Gold Camps book has a mention that has a bit of description of the location. I agree that it is not in GNIS, which does not help its notability. There is also a book, "
Blue Mountain City and Mitchell Mill." One could argue that this book is not a
WP:RS, but there are a number of similar publications for ghost towns, so I think it is a reasonably reliable source. Newspapers.com has a few mentions of "Blue Mountain City", I added two to the article. Clearly, there was a town there and there was coverage (book, newspaper articles), so #2 of
WP:GEOLAND is fulfilled.
Cxbrx (
talk)
23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep If it passed requirements at one time then it passes requirements now. We have articles on former settlements with little more than a mound structure that's been excavated by archaeologist and well we should. Articles on former settlements, villages and towns should be kept when they can be verified through reliable maps, books and documentation. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
14:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. In the past , there would have been noquestion, but our requirements have tightened, and we must judge by the present rules. I think there's enough evidence here, even using them. There's probably enough in the sources to expand the article. DGG (
talk )
06:14, 31 October 2020 (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.
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.
There is a
Blue Mountain in California, but it is two counties away, and I have searched the entire length of Licking Fork and not found anything that could possibly be this place, nor can I find a text reference that is definitely about such a place. Plainly not notable.
Mangoe (
talk)
21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. Guess what? It had a
post office. Yes, others don't agree with me that this fulfills legal recognition of
WP:GEOLAND. The
Gold Camps book has a mention that has a bit of description of the location. I agree that it is not in GNIS, which does not help its notability. There is also a book, "
Blue Mountain City and Mitchell Mill." One could argue that this book is not a
WP:RS, but there are a number of similar publications for ghost towns, so I think it is a reasonably reliable source. Newspapers.com has a few mentions of "Blue Mountain City", I added two to the article. Clearly, there was a town there and there was coverage (book, newspaper articles), so #2 of
WP:GEOLAND is fulfilled.
Cxbrx (
talk)
23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep If it passed requirements at one time then it passes requirements now. We have articles on former settlements with little more than a mound structure that's been excavated by archaeologist and well we should. Articles on former settlements, villages and towns should be kept when they can be verified through reliable maps, books and documentation. --
Tsistunagiska (
talk)
14:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. In the past , there would have been noquestion, but our requirements have tightened, and we must judge by the present rules. I think there's enough evidence here, even using them. There's probably enough in the sources to expand the article. DGG (
talk )
06:14, 31 October 2020 (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.