Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lurline, 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) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lurline, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Having trouble verifying what this place was. Topos show 2 or 3 buildings along the Colusa and Lake Railroad that disappear around the time the tracks did. There's a Lurline Creek in the area, as well as a Lurline Avenue. Newspapers.com and Gbooks bring up a bunch of hits for the road and a yacht, as well as one reference to the Lurline Dairy and one reference to a warehouse at Lurline. Since I'm unable to find anything explaining what exactly this was, I'm hesitant to say that this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy delete This is in Durham even though it's not cited. Durham says "locality: nearly 7 miles northwest of Williams along Colusa and Lake Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92Talk 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete All signs point to a rail spot which is long gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 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.