Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimbal, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Gimbal, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Don't know what the sole source (Durham) says here, but it doesn't seem notable. This place does not appear on topos. No GNIS entry, not in Gudde. This calls it a railroad switch. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Using "Gimbal, California", a Google Scholar search yielded; "Your search - "Gimbal, California" - did not match any articles." The same result occurred for "Gimbal California". Using the same search terms in JSTOR yielded "No results found". Otherwise, there seems to be at least handfull of persons with the surname Gimbel to be found in California. I did not find anything of any significance about a settlement called "Gimbal" in California. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources come even close to verrifying this is a significant place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, claims of settlement fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - For exactly the same reasons as all of the other thousands of GNIS/Durham-sourced stubs created by Carlos in 2009 which has to be the worst case of editor-negligence that I've ever seen and which we are ~6 months into clearing up with no end in sight (sigh). He literally spent maybe a couple-three minutes making each article back in 2009, even assuming good faith he was transparently just doing this so he could compete for the top spot on this list. As a result, here in 2021, 12 year later, we have to spend a week or more discussing each one at AFD to get them deleted if the PROD is declined. Fails WP:GEOLAND, mischaracterises Durham. EDIT: sorry to sound off about this but it really gets my goat when I see that I spent 2-3 times as long PRODing an article than the creator did creating it. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 2 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.