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.
Given that this is a dairying region, it seems as likely it was named for the cow. But at any rate, topos show this to be another rail spot, largely ignored for some decades until J. D. Heiskell dropped a big mill at the site. Some topos show a similarly large building, presumably a warehouse. What they don't show is a town: the area is farmland, and while there was a post office here for a while, that doesn't make a settlement.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Mass-producer carelessly misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality [p.1493: "A place that has past or present cultural associations."], 9 miles north-northwest of Corcoran along Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad...The name is for James Guernsey, who owned land at the place." not that it is a notable community, as is obvious on the maps.
Reywas92Talk23:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not fine with a redirect. We really have nothing to say about this other than it's a spot on the map; making a list of spots without the only important info (the coords) isn't helping anyone. We do not need to try to intercept every Google search.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. It had a
post office. I know that most (all?) editors don't agree with me that having a post office constitutes legal recognition, so please don't let this weak keep prevent deletion or merging. However,
Killiondude's newspapers.com references are trivial, so this locale is lacking non-trivial coverage. GBooks indicates that Guernesey did have a
library and there was a
rail station, Gudde states that it
first appeared on a railway map in 1902. I agree that people lived there, I'm just not seeing any form of notability yet. I'd like to see an article about the place, not a bunch of passing, trival references.
Cxbrx (
talk)
23:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:V if we want to have an article on a current or former settlement then we need to have a reliable source which says it's a current or former settlement. The GNIS is cited for this but
it's not reliable. We can't infer the existence of a settlement from the fact that it had a library, or a station, or that it's mentioned as a place in newspapers - that's
original research. Even if it is or was a community where people lived
WP:GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and I don't see any evidence this is or was legally recognised. If it has never been legally recognised then it has to pass the
WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Hut 8.519:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom and Hut, fails GNG and NGEO. The article does receive some views (~400 over a year prior to AfD), no objection to Redirect if there is a consensus. //
Timothy :: talk15:00, 16 December 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.
Given that this is a dairying region, it seems as likely it was named for the cow. But at any rate, topos show this to be another rail spot, largely ignored for some decades until J. D. Heiskell dropped a big mill at the site. Some topos show a similarly large building, presumably a warehouse. What they don't show is a town: the area is farmland, and while there was a post office here for a while, that doesn't make a settlement.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Mass-producer carelessly misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality [p.1493: "A place that has past or present cultural associations."], 9 miles north-northwest of Corcoran along Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad...The name is for James Guernsey, who owned land at the place." not that it is a notable community, as is obvious on the maps.
Reywas92Talk23:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not fine with a redirect. We really have nothing to say about this other than it's a spot on the map; making a list of spots without the only important info (the coords) isn't helping anyone. We do not need to try to intercept every Google search.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. It had a
post office. I know that most (all?) editors don't agree with me that having a post office constitutes legal recognition, so please don't let this weak keep prevent deletion or merging. However,
Killiondude's newspapers.com references are trivial, so this locale is lacking non-trivial coverage. GBooks indicates that Guernesey did have a
library and there was a
rail station, Gudde states that it
first appeared on a railway map in 1902. I agree that people lived there, I'm just not seeing any form of notability yet. I'd like to see an article about the place, not a bunch of passing, trival references.
Cxbrx (
talk)
23:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:V if we want to have an article on a current or former settlement then we need to have a reliable source which says it's a current or former settlement. The GNIS is cited for this but
it's not reliable. We can't infer the existence of a settlement from the fact that it had a library, or a station, or that it's mentioned as a place in newspapers - that's
original research. Even if it is or was a community where people lived
WP:GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and I don't see any evidence this is or was legally recognised. If it has never been legally recognised then it has to pass the
WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Hut 8.519:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom and Hut, fails GNG and NGEO. The article does receive some views (~400 over a year prior to AfD), no objection to Redirect if there is a consensus. //
Timothy :: talk15:00, 16 December 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.