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 keep. Randykitty ( talk) 18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

South Fork, Humboldt County, 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)

Is it notable? We'll find out now. 99721829Max ( talk) 00:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Declined PROD. Rationale was: Unsourced; a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up enough for it to pass WP:GNG. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep. No deletion rational provided in nomination. And wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Doncram: 99721829Max is the creator of the article. The article was proposed for deletion by Willsome429, and the rationale for deletion can be found in his PROD nomination and my subsequent endorsement of the PROD ( [1] [2]). – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 01:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Well could you please state any rationale for deletion explicitly here, for the record. Y'all are asking for multiple regular/specialized/skilled AFD editors with limited time to come and evaluate the article here and its AFD. Whatever is your rationale should not be hidden. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No entry for such place in the GNIS database, so no evidence it has merely appeared on a map, much less has any coverage in substantive sources to pass GNG. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Well, "South Fork" is in fact in the Geographic Names Information System, as GNIS ID 234961, which is classified as a "locale". This was mentioned in the article and/or tags on the article but was deleted by the edit opening the AFD. It is BOGUS to delete stuff in an article in order to try to "win" an AFD due to lack of stuff in the article. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Ah, I had searched populated places to exclude the hundreds of streams in the state. A locale is not automatically notable simply for appearing in a context-free database of anything that has been on a map. That entry mentions Dyerville, California as an alternate name; could redirect there. Reywas92 ^Talk 04:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• The historical settlement that was at this point, the confluence of South Fork Eel River and Eel River, until 1915 was Dyerville. This name was originally the name of a post office. Actually of two post offices, one short lived in 1861, and a second one in 1933, some 18 years after Dyerville was destroyed. See ISBN 9780520266193 p. 371. The second one was the post office of a short-lived town named — yes — South Fork, that sprang up because of the railroad and logging. See ISBN 9781467130622 p. 37 and ISBN 9780738595139 p. 48 et al.. History books, people! Uncle G ( talk) 10:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I find mention of South Fork, Humboldt County prior to 1915 e.g. in the Santa Cruz Weekly Sentinel January 8, 1876 "Colonel H. Allen. who recently died at South Fork, Humboldt county, weighed 350 pounds". References to it continue through to the 1950s (excluding of course mention of South Fork High School in nearby Miranda, California). Are we sure the South Fork settlement and Dyerville weren't in different locations e.g on different sides of the river? -- Pontificalibus 11:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I haven't found documentation of more than a South Fork post office in the 19th century, and although a settlement is possible the post office only lasted a year according to the aforecited source. The only actual South Fork settlement in the books that I have looked at so far is the 20th century one. South Fork and Dyerville are two distinct things, but seemingly more separated in time rather than space. See ISBN 9780738595139 p. 87 for a 1930s photograph of a CCC camp where Dyerville once was with the railroad in the background. Uncle G ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Ok, this claims the name "South Fork" was later adopted for the railroad station at the south end of the railroad bridge. If the settlement around the railroad station is what is referred to when sources say "South Fork, Humboldt County", this puts that settlement on the opposite side of the Eel River to Dyerville which was on the north bank. Here it is on a map fragment (website currently timing out).---- Pontificalibus
        • You are assuming something not in the sources, the physical extents of these things. They were both at the confluence. We don't know more than that. And as I said before: history books, not maps! The history books will tell you that Founders Grove, inagurated 1937-11-15 some 22 years after Dyerville was destroyed, is on the Dyerville Flats. You are looking at a map from entirely the wrong time period to determine where Dyerville was. Uncle G ( talk) 13:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
          • Regardless of the extent of Dyerville, the map shows South Fork railroad station well south of the south bank, and the source above shows, on the north bank, an "aerial view of Dyerville in 1935, which by that time was mostly a CCC Camp". Post-1935 sources referring to "South Fork, Humboldt County" are thus unlikely, at that time, to be referring to a settlement synonymous with Dyerville. This would indicate a separate article referring to the settlement and also railroad station may be warranted.---- Pontificalibus 13:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verified large (pop. 300) settlement. In the absence of any source stating this town (widely named in historical sources and with its own post office(s) and rail station) was actually simply a renamed Dyerville then this should not be merged---- Pontificalibus 07:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, because I cannot see a reason why WP:GEOLAND wouldn't apply. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:33, 18 September 2019 (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.