Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bixler, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Bixler, California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another train facility incorrectly called a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad. Old topo maps show what looks like a rail siding set in an agricultural district. Currently area is still primarily agricultural. No evidence of a community and not notable otherwise. Glendoremus (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * delete Only legitimate "book" hit identified it as one end of a track improvement program. It's still a BNSF siding, and not a community. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * DELETE per Nom. Also the census has never counted it as a place, see [] Goldenrowley (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Bixler had a post office. Here's a reference from the Contra Costa Historical Society that mentions Bixler as a community: "Historically, the area included communities now remembered only by road signs, including Point of Timber, Borden Junction, Bixler,  Orwood and Marsh Landing." (Marsh Landing is probably Marshs Landing, California, aka Antioch.) Interestingly, although it is WP:OR, Bixler and Orwood are about 1 mile apart, why would they have both have post offices unless they both had communities?  I did not look at Google Books nor newspapers.com. Cxbrx (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speculation as to why there were (at whatever times) two post offices close together is just that; things get done for reasons that don't necessarily make sense after the fact. The historical society page is a little better than nothing, but there's a figurative quality to the passage, as there aren't actually signs by the road for any of these places; I often check, and there was one case where I did find a sign and did not nominate the place for that reason. If they had said something concrete about any of these places, then I might give it some weight, but as it is, it's just a series of name drops, and it's not at all clear that they could tell me anything about these places other than that nobody lives there now. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. I don't think that having a post office necessarily makes this a legally recognised place. If it isn't a legally recognised place then it has to pass the GNG and it blatantly doesn't as the only sources are passing mentions, usually referring to it in a railroad context. This source does mention it as a place where one family lived, so I wonder whether that's the origin of the statements that it's a community.  Hut 8.5  18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. An abandoned post office does not an actual location make. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 13 August 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.