Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martendale, 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 keep. Perhaps not a clear-cut case, but there is a general consensus that Martensdale is notable Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Martendale, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

For once, Durham's account is repeated more or less accurately, but as it turns out, his information is mistaken. In the true story of Martens's scheme is revealed: there was no Martendale and never would be, because he didn't actually own any of the land at the place. Froese's sources for this passage are collections of settler accounts from Mennonite churches. I was unable to come up with other sources for the same statement. Land scams in California are not exactly uncommon, and I'm not convinced that this one is a notable example. I'm also dubious about it being notable as a not-community. But others may have further suggestions. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with Hog Farm?
 * Comment. We have a spelling issue here. The book cited above (California Mennonites) gives reference to Martens moving to Martensdale. Not Martendale. So search, Books brings two references, Programmable Search Engine brings Find a Grave and an image, and here is an image of Martensdale, circa 1909,1910. That's google image search, corrected to Martensdale. Another Google search brings an Iowa sports team and ten more pages or results. Consider. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - This indicates that there was actually a colony there before the fraud was discovered, and that it was "progressing prosperously".  The post office is also legitimate, and there were a number of stores there. Described as a town in 1909.  This was definitely a real place. More coverage at, , . Whole chunk of coverage here. I think the sum of all that is enough to demonstrate notability. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - If kept, this should be moved to Martensdale, California, as that appears to be the more frequent spelling. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after NAC. There is developing consensus that it is notable under its new name but relisting given that this remains disputed.
 * Keep but move to Martensdale, California in light of the information above. Smartyllama (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Three sentences long and one reference, no proof of notability. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the information found about Martensdale. I additionally found and  which seems to talk about "Henry J. Martens" and a land scheme which might well have been a fraud? Seems to be historically significant so I would suggest a keep and move to Martensdale, California.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This relist was unnecessary. Consensus is clear that it's notable, the only delete !vote is literally just going around to random town articles !voting delete with the same response. What a waste of a week of editors' time. Smartyllama (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with that as well. While I agree that the NAC itself was inappropriate, I don't think Blubablua9990's !vote should be given much weight.  It clearly doesn't take WP:NEXIST into account, and is just looking at the shape the article is in without taking into account the sources provided in the AFD. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 17 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.