Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marble Place, 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.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Marble Place, California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another round of California "Places", all of the isolated buildings in forests on the topo maps with little to no trace on aerials and nothing significant on searches except possibly passing references as, well, places, typically as if they were homesteads. The articles are all the most basic sort of GNIS dump and make no claims to notability. Mangoe (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The others in this group:


 * Delete Marble Place per nom. The red link in the template at the bottom can stay.  Need more reference and source before grouping it in with officially incorporated communities.  As for the others, nominate each at a time.Grmike (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all, do not keep links. No evidence these are or were notable communities, per previous AFDs. Reywas92Talk 20:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The M's are all properties, and Old Red Rock Place came up only once in a search and may not be a property but I'm not sure what it is. Further proof GNIS isn't reliable. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - More ranches mislabeled as populated places. Since these are/were obviously just ranches, they shouldn't be kept in the "unincorporated communities" template. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment With regards to the keeping of redlinks in the template, either these are real unincorporated communities, and should be kept regardless of the current state of the article (as AFD is not cleanup and they would pass GEOLAND in that case), or they're not, in which case they should be deleted and removed from the template. Deleting them but keeping the redlinks in the template makes no sense. I'd need to do more research to determine which it is. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 6 May 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.