Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mock, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Mock, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As with Alico and Talus, this was another point at which a short spur ran off to a mine from the long-abandoned SP line. Definitely not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of every dot on the map.TH1980 (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NGEO, "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc.", this community has a GNIS tag as well. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have looked at the location on the map before voting: This is not a populated place. The WP:GNIS is not a reliable source for determining a place is actually a community, nor does it establish notability. You can see on the topo map from which the GNIS took its data that Mock is the name for a railroad spur, not a community. A negligent user mass-created thousands of articles from the GNIS without bothering to see if the junk he was spewing was actually accurate. Reywas92Talk 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not be condescending nor pointy, thanks. Also GNIS is an essay not policy. I still stand that it should be kept. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? The article is wrong. You are wrong: "this community" has no basis in fact whatsoever. It was never a community, it is not notable, and you have provided no evidence to to contrary. A GNIS tag means shit, or are this industrial railroad spur in Washington and this railroad junction communities too? Reywas92Talk 19:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a community, no evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V if we want to have an article on something which purports to be a populated place, we need a reliable source which says it's a populated place. The burden of proof for showing this is on those who want to keep or retain the content. The GNIS is not a reliable source for this, there are many cases where it has said that something is a populated place when it isn't. There don't seem to be any better sources out there.  Hut 8.5  11:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No post office. Newspapers.com was no help, "block" gets confused with "mock".  Time and time again, we have seen that GNIS is not sufficient to show notability for a location.  Mock was a siding and quarry.  Nothing more.  This locale does not meet WP:GNG nor as it has no legal recognition nor does it have non-trivial coverage, it meets neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 17:44, 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.