Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denco, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Denco, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another one of those entries only in Durham. Not on topos, no GNIS entry, nothing on newspapers.com except for the name of some company, not in Gudde's California place names book. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says under the entry for Colusa: "California Division of Highways' (1934) map shows a place called Denco located 4 miles north of Colusa along Sacramento Northern Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92Talk 00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete I find nothing along the line to which this name could be attached. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 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.