Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariposita, 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. Probably a borderline case, but in the end only one person wants to keep this.  Sandstein  18:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Mariposita, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:NGEO and WP:NTEMP in that it seems to have only been a temporary "camp" of no real historical significance or repute. There are also no citations or sources and a simple search yields nothing. aNubiSIII ( T /  C ) 19:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * comment As a rule we have not considered mining camps to be notable per se, but this might be a borderline exception. I am finding several references to events in this camp, but it could also be argued that the events themselves are not terribly notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Delete Weak Delete. No post office. Confirmed that it does not appear in the GNIS.  Trivial coverage in newspapers.com:, , . As this location is not legally recognized it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. Gudde has a trivial mention that has text that is close to what is in the article.   There is only trivial coverage, so it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND.  Cxbrx (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cxbrx. I turned up the same newspapers.com coverage, as well as a few two-sentence mentions in county histories.  WP:GEOLAND is not met, and there doesn't seem to be enough for WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon
 * Keep Thanks to the articles provided above by Cxbrx we have a location for the place, in 1925 in The Fresno Morning Republican: "about 7 miles south of Mariposa" and in the first article a reason for its notability as one of the places targeted by the nativist American miners in 1850 and one that resisted the 1850 law that covered their cupidity. We also see in the last article that the place was a well enough known location to readers of a paper in 1866 to be used to locate another place 5 miles downstream where a Frenchman died, when a bank fell on him. Presumably he was placer mining the stream.


 * comments I think this article should be kept as these gold camps which were not "official" were large and significant places at the time.  Their suppression wrought all sorts of economic havoc and provoked vengeful criminality throughout the state in the 1850's, (like that of the gang of Joaquin Murrieta and other foreigners), as papers, accounts and books by people who lived there at the time attest. I also think we may find Mariposita on an early Geogical Survey Map if they reported on it in 1925.  Asiaticus (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * comment A pertinent paper is Cosgrave, G., 1942. A Diplomatic Incident on the Little Mariposa. California Historical Society Quarterly, 21(4), pp.358-362. Paul H. (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * additional comment There are four hits in the California History search including the above paper for Mariposita. There is another hit, Mitchell (1949), in the California History search for Little Mariposa, which is another name for Mariposita. California History should also be searched for other California locales being considered for deletion. Paul H. (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Good point about searching the California Historical Society Quarterly.  Fortunately JSTOR has copies and I have access to JSTOR via Wikipedia.  I added the Cosgrave citation to the article.  The title of the article includes "Little Mariposa" and my primitive understanding of Spanish suggests that "Mariposita" is Spanish for "Little Mariposita".  However, this feels like WP:OR to me.  Interestingly, Cosgrave states that Little Mariposa Creek was about four miles south of Mariposa, whereas  states that Mariposita is seven miles south of Mariposa.  I chose to include both references in the article (teach the controversy!).  Mitchell mentions "the Little Mariposa", which sounds like a reference to a creek, not to a settlement, so I chose not to add it.  Also, I find Mitchell's references to be trivial.
 * I searched JSTOR for the other California locations that are up for deletion and because many of the names are very common, I had little success. I did find a few passing references for "Stove pipe wells" and "Stovepipe wells", but nothing really compelling.  I'll add JSTOR to the list of sources that I check for AfDs.
 * It does seem that the Mitchell article is one non-trivial reference for Mariposita, so I'm changing from Delete to Weak Delete. If there was another non-trivial article, I'd go with Keep.  Cxbrx (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment On the milage discrepancy, a look at the topographical map of the area provides the answer. If the creek is followed it is 7 miles, if it is as the crow flies its 4 miles.Asiaticus (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:30, 6 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.