Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberdeen, California


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Aberdeen, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a mess, not the least because it is actually two different spots. The original location was a passing siding and water stop, a spot now utterly abandoned. The current location is labelled "Aberdeen" on topos from the same era, but the small cluster of buildings resolves in reality to the Aberdeen Resort, consisting of mobile home and RV camps and supporting buildings. I'm seeing a lack of settlement notability in both cases. Mangoe (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This settlement has a very unique history that deserves proper documentation. Kieran207 (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep. It had a post office, so I feel it meets #1 of WP:GEOLAND. I acknowledge that most editors disagree with me on this and would not want to block consensus here.  Newspapers.com has many trivial mentions of "Aberdeen Inyo".  GBooks has items about the railroad and post office.  GBooks has snippet that would be nice to see the full text.  Cxbrx (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it appears to be an actual settlement. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V if we want to say there's a settlement here we need a reliable source which says so. The burden of proof for this lies with those who want to retain the content. Here all we have is the GNIS listing, and GNIS hasn't shown itself to be very reliable for this. We can't infer the existence of a settlement from mentions in newspapers or the fact it has a post office, that would be original research.  Hut 8.5  11:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Having once had a PO doesn't automatically make a place a notable. Yilloslime (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It does appear to have been verified to have been a settlement, as per the sources Cxbrx provided. Oakshade (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a post office doesn't meam something was a settlement, there were plenty of rural post offices at the time which weren't settlements. It doesn't look like anyone has even seen the text of the other source so we certainly can't use that. At a bare minimum we need a source which says "this is/was a settlement" or something equivalent.  Hut 8.5  07:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND. Not a legally recognised community, fails GNG. Simply having had a post office does not confer notability. Ask yourself whether there is really any article to be written about this locality? If the answer is no (and it is) then why do we have one? Additionally this was part of a campaign of article creation where a single editor created thousands of stubs based on bad sourcing and should be got rid of simply on WP:TNT principles. FOARP (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete however much I am charmed by the idea of an Aberdeen in California. Aberdeen is a dreich place, but this one fails GEOLAND. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 10 December 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.