Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolsa Knolls, 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 redirect to Salinas, California. Content remains undeleted in the history should anyone want to (very selectively) merge it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Bolsa Knolls, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A non-notable subdivision NE of Salinas. There were almost as many GHits on the middle school there as there were for the locale (the latter all being the usual geoclickbait and real estate stuff) and the book hits were all geo-name-drops. The only thing beyond that was news about the middle school's principal dying in his sleep back in October, which is tragic but hardly the stuff of encyclopedic content. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Ineligible for a presumption of notability per WP:GEOLAND, as it is not legally recognised (unincorporated). --IWI (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope - "legally recognized" does not mean incorporated. There are plenty of large, legally recognized settlements that are unincorporated, e.g. Kidlington and Topanga, California .Pontificalibus 09:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Flawed rationale. Either it's a subdivision of Salinas, in which case we must merge there per WP:GEOLAND, or else it's a distinct legally recognized settlement, in which case it warrants its own article. Looking at official US government maps, the settlement is awarded legal recognition by virtue of it's designation on maps as a distinct settlement. for example on the 1984 Salinas Quadrangle 7.5 minute sheet. Even if it has later become merged with Salinas, a separate article is still warranted.Pontificalibus 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maps are not evidence that it is legally recognised, as stated below. There would be some form of legal document to demonstrate its recognition, which has not been found. This is not an example of a legally recognised unincorporated settlement from what I can see. --IWI (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was that when the map was drawn it was a sizeable settlement distinct from Salinas. Legal recognition of such a settlement is a given, not because it was on a map, but because of the particular size and location of it - it's inconceivable that such a settlement was not recognized as such by any legal authority at that time. For example here is an article discussing the proposed annexation of Bolsa Knolls and other areas to the city of Salinas. The idea that this proceeded without Bolsa Knolls being recognized in law is absurd.Pontificalibus 20:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Salinas. No, WP:NGEO says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Mere appearance on maps is not legal recognition as a basis for automatic notability: this is a neighborhood/subdivision and falls under WP:GEOLAND point 2, requiring siginificant coverage. Reywas92Talk 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * comment as far as merger is concerned, the two problems are (a) there is almost nothing here to merge, and (b) articles on cities almost never say much about the neighborhoods, which I think is entirely reasonable: too many of them cannot be reliably documented, so it's undue to include the few that show up on topo maps. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2021 (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.