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.
Not a community, it is literally a canyon. Even GNIS calls it a canyon. Durham's Place-Names of the San Francisco Bay Area calls it a canyon. Gudde calls it a canyon. It is only notable as the setting for the
Vicente Martinez Adobe. This fact is captured in the related article.
Glendoremus (
talk)
16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)reply
comment The notability of the canyon itself is borderline: there are numerous references to it, but I cannot find much that talks about the canyon in its own right at any much length. It does encompass not only the John Muir Site, but also a
substantial public park and a
wilderness area held by the John Muir Land Trust. Both of these sites talk about the canyon, a little. I'm still not quite convinced that an article needs to exist, but the current "unincorporated community" claim is baldly wrong and was put there because someone was careless and made a bad assumption when updating the article to actually say what Franklin Canyon is.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Aha. I do see that the wilderness area is in the area, though quite a ways to the west. For now I'm leaning delete.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I waited a pretty long time for someone to post the sources this needs to be notable so I could vote keep, but it never happened. So, delete it is. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
03:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There are plenty of geographical features without Wikipedia articles that are more notable than Franklin Canyon. However, most of them don't meet notability guidelines either. It doesn't make sense to keep this article.
Scorpions13256 (
talk)
05:57, 1 August 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.
Not a community, it is literally a canyon. Even GNIS calls it a canyon. Durham's Place-Names of the San Francisco Bay Area calls it a canyon. Gudde calls it a canyon. It is only notable as the setting for the
Vicente Martinez Adobe. This fact is captured in the related article.
Glendoremus (
talk)
16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)reply
comment The notability of the canyon itself is borderline: there are numerous references to it, but I cannot find much that talks about the canyon in its own right at any much length. It does encompass not only the John Muir Site, but also a
substantial public park and a
wilderness area held by the John Muir Land Trust. Both of these sites talk about the canyon, a little. I'm still not quite convinced that an article needs to exist, but the current "unincorporated community" claim is baldly wrong and was put there because someone was careless and made a bad assumption when updating the article to actually say what Franklin Canyon is.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Aha. I do see that the wilderness area is in the area, though quite a ways to the west. For now I'm leaning delete.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I waited a pretty long time for someone to post the sources this needs to be notable so I could vote keep, but it never happened. So, delete it is. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
03:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There are plenty of geographical features without Wikipedia articles that are more notable than Franklin Canyon. However, most of them don't meet notability guidelines either. It doesn't make sense to keep this article.
Scorpions13256 (
talk)
05:57, 1 August 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.