Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartlett, 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bartlett, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In the continuing saga of the abandoned SP line in Inyo County, we have this industrial site, home to a series of soda processing concerns, the last which still stands, abandoned for over fifty years. Every mention of this place is with respect to this mining, including Mr. Bartlett himself, an executive with one of the earlier concerns. The processing itself is a notable part of the history of Owens Lake, but not this specific spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep. It had post office.  Don't let my weak keep block consensus for deletion of this article.  Newspapers.com has mentions of Pittsburgh Plate Glass at Bartlett.  GBooks has a paragraph that states that Bartlett was a chemical plant and station.  Note that none of the other recent California geography AfDs are present in that book.  GBooks has various trivial mentions of Bartlett as a plant and as a post office.  Cxbrx (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete apart from GNIS (which isn't very reliable), the sources say this was a chemical plant and station. WP:GEOLAND gives near-automatic notability to populated places, but not to chemical plants or stations. They would have to be notable through passing the general notability guideline, which this doesn't.  Hut 8.5  11:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, this one had more potential than most of these, but it still comes up short and fails GNG and NGEO. It did actually exist, I believe there must have been a community (very small, but still a community) here based on the businesses, but this is an assumption. In the end there is no SIGCOV, and a assumption there was a community here is not a enough.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:32, 13 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.