Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort John, 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 keep. Consensus to keep per WP:GEOLAND, article has significantly improved since deletion nomination. (non-admin closure) — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 05:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Fort John, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GEOLAND as it is not a legally-recognised settlement, or a WP:GNG-passing non-legally recognised settlement. Only one reference is cited, Durham, which the creator has systematically misrepresented in hundreds of articles. Created as part of a campaign of mass-creation of stub articles in 2009. Creator has waived the right to be notified. FOARP (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Described here as an "early and populous town" although it was evidently unlocatable and barely known by 1947. This calls it a combined church and schoolhouse. Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's notable that that article is entirely concerned with failing to find it, and that some of the people consulted haven't even heard of it. The second article doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV as it's a bare mention. Still a WP:GEOLAND fail. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm inclined to view this as probably non-notable. I'll finish up my sourcing search later, but it's not looking promising. Hog Farm Talk 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even when in searching a 19th-century Amador County history I found online, there was no significant coverage of this place.  Most of the coverage I could find was related to a structure near Fort Laramie in Wyoming.  There just doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage of this place to support an article.  As discussed above, one of the two sources linked above is not significant coverage, and the other is simply about the location of Fort John being unfindable. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I added some sources.  It is referenced in works on Amador County history.  It was briefly populated around 1850-51, with some mining occurring later in the decade.  Also found references in 1850s Amador County newspapers.  Note: Amador wasn't created until 1854, so there may be more sources referencing it in Calaveras County.  Definitely was a recognized populated community, albeit briefly.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So I guess flip me to Not sure, leaning keep given Milowent's new references? There's no evidence here that it was legally recognised (that would require incorporation) and the fact that it is described as only having been inhabited a year really makes me think it was just a camp. But the number of references and the length of some of them makes me think it might be a WP:GNG pass all the same, and hence a WP:GEOLAND pass. The creator described lots of places as being settlements which weren't, but this doesn't mean that all of them weren't settlements and I congratulate Milowent on their excellent research. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reconsidering, FOARP. I enjoy some of these geography AFDs as a challenge, and I can appreciate why it was nominated in the form it was in before.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place. Note that there is no consensus whatsoever as to the meaning of "legally recognized" in that guideline - it could range from "not an illegal encampment" to "a fully chartered town". However it's clear form the articles we keep on unincorporated communities that having recognition in official sources such as maps that the places is an established settlement is sufficient for us to have an article on it. Anyway, regardless of this argument the current sourcing in the article satisfies WP:GNG.Pontificalibus 09:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "legal recognition" clearly means "recognised by law". There are only a few ways in which a community can actually be recognised by law (i.e., have a law passed recognising them) and incorporation/chartering is the obvious one. Saying "legal recognition" means "not illegal" is clearly a stretch. All the same I don't disagree about WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The non-notable places we have been rightly deleting that might seem similar to this are places which never were inhabited by a community: isolated ranches, railroad sidings, undefinable names on a map, temporary post offices, and the like. This was an actual village. If it was inhabitedt oday, there would be no question but thatwe would keep it. Once notable, always notable, because WP is a permanent encyclopedia.
 * Keep. Sources now present in the article (which, admittedly, may have been added after this AFD opened) demonstrate significant coverage of the location. Furthermore, I also consider this meet the requirements of GEOLAND, though as shown above there seems to be some variation in how people read those requirements...DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving to keep based on new sources per WP:HEY. Hog Farm Talk 18:48, 15 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.