Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largo, 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 Ukiah area.

Buckle up. Procedurally, looks like this AfD was lost in limbo: last relisted on Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 3, closed on the 16th (as merge) but perhaps reopened without attaching to a new log list? Let's put it out of its misery.

Redirection/merger would be the clear next step here, per WP:ATD-R and how these station AfDs have traditionally gone when they're proven to have existed in some form. This said, there is no clear redirect target, with moderate disagreement about Hopland, California, or Mendocino County, California, being adequate targets. So I've taken the unusual step of mainspacing 's Ukiah area composition below since there was more interest in redirecting there (to an draft that does not exist in draft or mainspace) than to any existing target. There might be disagreement about the name or scope of that article, but that is a matter for its talk page and, perhaps, a subsequent AfD. Fair warning: If the new article is moved into draftspace, all of the redirects and their page histories will naturally be deleted, so be sure to move those into draftspace as well if needed for reference.

czar 21:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Largo, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another NWP station stop that is long gone, in the midst (now anyway) of a spread of vineyards. Searching was cluttered by Spanish language results and by mis-scans of the word "large", but I did find a few references of the usual someone "from" there, and one stating that on the opposite side of the river there was once a dry ice factory; I could find no trace of it, but neither the topos nor the aerials go all that far back. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Topo maps from 1958 to 2018 show a persistent nothingness in this zone. No results in news, no results on Google I could find (I had to search with  because otherwise it gets confazed by there being a freight ship named Largo). Nothing in books except for translation or OCR errors. I don't think anything is really going on with Largo, California. jp×g 04:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Support merger to general area article per below - Gudde calls it a railroad station.  Newspapers.com is largely useless due to about 11,000 (literally) scanner errors of the word large, but the string "Largo station" brings up some passing mentions, references to a water gauge for the Russian River, a ranch being near Largo station, and an announcement from the state railway commission recommending closure in 1949.  Other things I could find in other sources: the postmaster at Largo sent in some plants for identification in 1903.  Nonagency station reclassified to Class E in 1949.  And you've got this 1937 photograph of Largo Station with hills in the background that's a single small building.  I'm inclined to think this isn't notable, but I'm willing to listen if someone can find something significant. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1890 Bancroft's Official Railway Guide of the San Francisco and North Pacific Railway Company has it as the stop after El Robles on the Ukiah to Hopland main line. Searching is made somewhat easier by looking in conjunction with "Crawford Ranch", which is just to the west of the station.  I cannot find any documentation other than timetables for the station, or indeed in depth documentation for the ranch, sorting out the Charlie/Leslie problem.  Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hopland, California where I added a mention. Largo is Spanish for Long and it was named for L.F Long who grew the first hops there . The region became hop-farming country, hence the nearby Sanel being renamed Hopland. Since this is where it all started I figure it could be mentioned in the Hopland article. People did live at Largo but I'm not sure there's enough evidence to call it a settlement.Pontificalibus  11:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would appreciate additional thoughts on User:Pontificalibus's proposed merger. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
 * Comment. There are several passing mentions in Carpenter and Millbury's History of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California (1914), but not in-depth enough to establish notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When researching I found a source that talks about the railroad in the Ukiah Valley and environs, in a way that would suggest a way to deal with El Roble, California, Hopland, California, Fountain, California, Echo, Mendocino County, California, and Old Hopland, California through some sort of merger, example content below. The source calls this the Ukiah area, and has a lot more to say than the railroad, as it covers various valleys from Potter Valley to McDowell Valley, soil, climate, and agriculture; all in extensive detail across 47 pages.  It practically supports a complete article in its own right.  So maybe that's an idea rather than merging into a railroad article or one of the other railroad stops. Uncle G (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit wary of "area" articles where there isn't widespread usage of the term by multiple sources with a common definition. Perhaps a section within Mendocino County, California would be more appropriate - the Geography and Communities sections there are basically just lists at the moment, so there's plenty of scope for improvement.Pontificalibus 06:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but Northern and Central Pomo territorial areas (ISBN 9780520266674), "Sprouting Valley" (ISBN 9780988733022), central Mendocino County in the 19th century ("central Mendocino County, i.e., Sanel, Ukiah, Redwood Valley, and Potter Valley" &mdash; A Summary of Knowledge of the Central and Northern California Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas: Socioeconomic conditions, 1977, Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers), the principal fruit sections of Mendocino, the chain of lakes between two parts of the Coastal Range (Biennial Report of the State Board of Horticulture, 1892, California State Board of Horticulture), and "the wine country of the Russian River" (as our Mendocino Range article currently puts it) didn't seem to be better choices. &#9786; The problem with the county is that that is political geography (and indeed the Pomo territories are also human geography), whereas the Ukiah area, with discussion of valleys, agriculture, climate, and whatnot, is physical (and to an extent economic) geography.  The two do not align.  Russian River drainage basin ("The Santa Rosa plains, Alexander Valley, Hopland Valley, Ukiah Valley, Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, and other smaller valleys are level areas comprising about 15 percent of the Russian River drainage basin. The remainder of the area is hilly and mountainous [&hellip;]" &mdash; Russian River Basin Channel Improvement, Bank Stabilization, Sonoma/Mendocino Counties: Environmental Impact Statement, 1972, United States Army Corps of Engineers ) is possibly an alternative.  Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am new to this discussion, but am puzzled by this one. If it was a station, I would expect to to be mentioned in the Northwestern Pacific Railroad article. I do not see it there, but maybe it was on some other line covered by another article. If so, that article could have a paragraph or so for each station, maybe a picture, and have station names redirect to the entries in the route article. Am I missing the point? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support a merger into an article about the general area. Might be best to work that up in the draft space - I don't think this stub will be missed much while the draft is being worked on. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are merging, we need both this and the articles that were deleted. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be pretty easy to get the undelete, if there's consensus for this, as I think it was just prods. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have the 303 square mile 1914 USDA definition, but there is also the 3,506 square mile Ukiah Micro Area and the Greater Ukiah area, including adjacent valleys and connecting communities. The 1936 Ukiah area embraces the arable valleys of the Russian River drainage system in Mendocino County, together with the adjacent mountains. It seems a bit vague. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ukiah area or possibly Mendocino County, California. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why was the close reverted? I don’t get it. The obvious consensus is to close as merge. Since we can’t merge to non-existent articles surely it makes sense to merge to Hopland, California and then if a more suitable target later becomes available, the redirect can be changed to point to it. —--Pontificalibus 18:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - would creating a draft using the content above and then merging this into the draft be a decent idea? Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m probably not the best person to ask as I’m not convinced a Ukiah area article would be kept at a theoretical AfD based on the sourcing above. We can’t redirect to a draft anyway - better to merge to an existing article and then if and when a better article is established in mainspace, update the redirect.--Pontificalibus 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete ( Support Hog Farm's proposal to work on an higher-level subject as a draft ); oppose Pontificalibus' idea to merge with a target that isn't the very best conceivable target. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the aforementioned draft is not currently in existence, right?
 * It does not currently exist, and I just started a new job and don't have time to create one. Probably best to just delete this for now; the history can be restored for merging once the draft exists. Hog Farm Talk 17:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Definitely not enough for a stand-alone article and the proposed merger targets above are sub-optimal. As  says, we can WP:REFUND the article if there ever is anything relevant to merge to.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A redirect to Hopland, California is compliant with our redirects policy, would survive an RfD, and avoids the need for a refund process should a better target be created. In fact it would be perfectly valid to create such a redirect if this AfD is recluses as delete, but this would be a worse outcome because the redirect wouldn’t the have the edit history attached. The original AfD close should not have been undone.
 * But why don’t we leave this AfD open for a few more months, maybe it will close itself because it sure is a scary and difficult decision for any one admin to make.—--Pontificalibus 05:02, 24 June 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.