- 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dagon, California ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If "nothing remains of Dagon today," it would seem that the reason was that there wasn't ever anything there. The name doesn't appear on the topo quad until 1959, and while there are a couple of buildings there even on old maps, they are all accounted for by the ranch which is still there. Searching is almost impossible due to people in California have interests in things Mesopotamian, but I found no indications of a community here. Mangoe ( talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep: the sources are enough for WP:GEOLAND to apply. Even Google Maps acknowledges that a settlement existed here. Java Hurricane 07:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is essentially a source, which is GNIS, which is known to be unreliable. GMaps says there's a place there because it's copying this article!
Mangoe (
talk)
07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- So ignore the USGS?
Java
Hurricane
07:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your words, not mine. [lease read
Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data so you can understand the problems with using GNIS as an authority on the nature of the places it lists.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops... a learning experience for me. Changing my vote to Delete. Thanks!
Java
Hurricane
15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ JavaHurricane: In my experience GNIS is very reliable. That essay you were sent to was written a month ago by just a few editors, and is not an essay that is widely cited by editors, nor is it policy or even a guideline. My advice is do your own research and find sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops... a learning experience for me. Changing my vote to Delete. Thanks!
Java
Hurricane
15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your words, not mine. [lease read
Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data so you can understand the problems with using GNIS as an authority on the nature of the places it lists.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- So ignore the USGS?
Java
Hurricane
07:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is essentially a source, which is GNIS, which is known to be unreliable. GMaps says there's a place there because it's copying this article!
Mangoe (
talk)
07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Aside from the two reliable sources cited in the article, this 1900 publication lists Dagon, and this source identifies Dagon. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- The first simply identifies it as a spot on the railroad where material could in principle be shipped from. The second doesn't "identify" Dagon at all; it gives it as sort-of an address for a mining operation, but as you can see if you click all the way through to a map, the spot given is some ways south of the location on railroad that GNIS gives. In other words, "Dagon" here is just a locale, not a settlement. We're back to the familiar problem: the maps and aerials show no settlement, the references to it as a placename establish it as no more than a locale, and GNIS's "populated place" designation covers too many different kinds of human activity to allow it to be automatically rendered as "community".
- The merits of the essay are in its arguments, not by some sort of certification— the same issue that plagues GNIS. When you're essentially saying, "don't bother reading it," you're saying, "don't think." You cannot write an accurate encyclopedia that way, and an inaccurate encyclopedia, especially one that is being copied mindlessly, is a propagator of misinformation. Your bald claim that GNIS is reliable relies on an authority which you do not have, but it seems to me that enough fact-checking has been done to show that the way that GNIS categorizes places presents problems for it use. If you want to argue against the points made in the essay, do so; but just saying "it's just an essay" is a cop-out. Mangoe ( talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, GNIS is not a reliable source for the existence of these supposed communities, and there is no other evidence that it was one. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this GNIS stub that should never have been created. -- Cornellier ( talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND as it is not legally recognized and has not received significant coverage. Unclear where the "former settlement" and "nothing remains" details originated from;they appear to be OR. – dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 2 June 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dagon, California ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If "nothing remains of Dagon today," it would seem that the reason was that there wasn't ever anything there. The name doesn't appear on the topo quad until 1959, and while there are a couple of buildings there even on old maps, they are all accounted for by the ranch which is still there. Searching is almost impossible due to people in California have interests in things Mesopotamian, but I found no indications of a community here. Mangoe ( talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep: the sources are enough for WP:GEOLAND to apply. Even Google Maps acknowledges that a settlement existed here. Java Hurricane 07:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is essentially a source, which is GNIS, which is known to be unreliable. GMaps says there's a place there because it's copying this article!
Mangoe (
talk)
07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- So ignore the USGS?
Java
Hurricane
07:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your words, not mine. [lease read
Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data so you can understand the problems with using GNIS as an authority on the nature of the places it lists.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops... a learning experience for me. Changing my vote to Delete. Thanks!
Java
Hurricane
15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ JavaHurricane: In my experience GNIS is very reliable. That essay you were sent to was written a month ago by just a few editors, and is not an essay that is widely cited by editors, nor is it policy or even a guideline. My advice is do your own research and find sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops... a learning experience for me. Changing my vote to Delete. Thanks!
Java
Hurricane
15:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Your words, not mine. [lease read
Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data so you can understand the problems with using GNIS as an authority on the nature of the places it lists.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- So ignore the USGS?
Java
Hurricane
07:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is essentially a source, which is GNIS, which is known to be unreliable. GMaps says there's a place there because it's copying this article!
Mangoe (
talk)
07:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Aside from the two reliable sources cited in the article, this 1900 publication lists Dagon, and this source identifies Dagon. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- The first simply identifies it as a spot on the railroad where material could in principle be shipped from. The second doesn't "identify" Dagon at all; it gives it as sort-of an address for a mining operation, but as you can see if you click all the way through to a map, the spot given is some ways south of the location on railroad that GNIS gives. In other words, "Dagon" here is just a locale, not a settlement. We're back to the familiar problem: the maps and aerials show no settlement, the references to it as a placename establish it as no more than a locale, and GNIS's "populated place" designation covers too many different kinds of human activity to allow it to be automatically rendered as "community".
- The merits of the essay are in its arguments, not by some sort of certification— the same issue that plagues GNIS. When you're essentially saying, "don't bother reading it," you're saying, "don't think." You cannot write an accurate encyclopedia that way, and an inaccurate encyclopedia, especially one that is being copied mindlessly, is a propagator of misinformation. Your bald claim that GNIS is reliable relies on an authority which you do not have, but it seems to me that enough fact-checking has been done to show that the way that GNIS categorizes places presents problems for it use. If you want to argue against the points made in the essay, do so; but just saying "it's just an essay" is a cop-out. Mangoe ( talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, GNIS is not a reliable source for the existence of these supposed communities, and there is no other evidence that it was one. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete this GNIS stub that should never have been created. -- Cornellier ( talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:GEOLAND as it is not legally recognized and has not received significant coverage. Unclear where the "former settlement" and "nothing remains" details originated from;they appear to be OR. – dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 2 June 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.