- 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) 02:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Daisie, California ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem notable. There's a cluster of five buildings here in what appears to be a fairly uninhabited area next to a levee on the topos. However, the topos never mark the site with a name. (GNIS entry sourced to a NOAA chart). The three newspapers.com hits in Yolo County are two personal names and a reference to flowers. Nothing relevant in RS in Google books or on Google. I don't think WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG are met here. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:GEOLAND.-- Kieran207 talk 02:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - The Yolo County GIS Viewer, has your cluster of buildings designated as "Daisie, CA, USA." However, the GIS shows only three residences with official addresses that all use Clarksburg, California in them, instead of Daisie. This entity strikes me as being too small and ordinary to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. (Note: use the menu box with "Enter address or APN" in upper lefthand corner to search for Daisie, California on map.) Paul H. ( talk) 05:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Yes GIS applications often have GNIS imported, doesn't mean it's accurately a community or, if so, notable. Reywas92 Talk 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- delete OK, first of all, the source for the GNIS entry is a nautical chart, which is invariably a bad sign. Second, the cluster of buildings, once it shows up on the topos, is readily worked out to be a farm. The aerials all show this as well, as does GMaps. There's obviously nothing notable here, at least not geographically. Mangoe ( talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (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) 02:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Daisie, California ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem notable. There's a cluster of five buildings here in what appears to be a fairly uninhabited area next to a levee on the topos. However, the topos never mark the site with a name. (GNIS entry sourced to a NOAA chart). The three newspapers.com hits in Yolo County are two personal names and a reference to flowers. Nothing relevant in RS in Google books or on Google. I don't think WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG are met here. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:GEOLAND.-- Kieran207 talk 02:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - The Yolo County GIS Viewer, has your cluster of buildings designated as "Daisie, CA, USA." However, the GIS shows only three residences with official addresses that all use Clarksburg, California in them, instead of Daisie. This entity strikes me as being too small and ordinary to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. (Note: use the menu box with "Enter address or APN" in upper lefthand corner to search for Daisie, California on map.) Paul H. ( talk) 05:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Yes GIS applications often have GNIS imported, doesn't mean it's accurately a community or, if so, notable. Reywas92 Talk 08:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- delete OK, first of all, the source for the GNIS entry is a nautical chart, which is invariably a bad sign. Second, the cluster of buildings, once it shows up on the topos, is readily worked out to be a farm. The aerials all show this as well, as does GMaps. There's obviously nothing notable here, at least not geographically. Mangoe ( talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (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.