Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panoche Junction, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Panoche Junction, California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The GNIS spot is off a bit to the west; looking back into old topos and aerials, the actual spot is a building on the south side of an orchard. Searching seems to show that this building houses a pumping station for an oil pipeline. At any rate all evidence is that there was never a settlement here, and the pumping station doesn't seem notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * At least one person is "from there:" Also recognised as a place several places:    And has a weather station: . It at least appears to be accepted as a place name. I'd defer to keeping this. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this Dave McCurley lived in one of the two buildings near Panoche Junction on the contemporaneous topos. The junction first appeared on the 1946 map but reviewing the rest of the sources I'm not convinced it's a notable community: it was a junction of roads and a gas pipeline near Panoche Road leading through the Panoche Hills to Panoche, California. Reywas92Talk 21:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep In addition to the evidence SportingFlyer found, there's evidence of the name's continued use; see here (referring to utility work in the area) and here (referring to a nearby overcrossing). The one thing that gives me pause is that we only have one piece of evidence that anyone lived here, and that's the stated home of a person in an out-of-town yacht race; if that's somehow a mistake, then this looks a lot more like a locale than a populated place. I'll take the source at its word, but I'd really like to find more evidence of habitation here. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Newspaper coverage is almost entirely within the context of the pipeline. There's no indication that this was actually a settlement beyond the single "someone lived there" reference, and it certainly doesn't have enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv  🍁  04:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Actual location. Meets GNG per above sources. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * comment Being an "actual location" is of course not a claim to notability, and we are (as usual) foundering on that issue and falling back on the claim to be a community. But the best anyone seems to be doing, it seems to me, is that the pumping station is used as a reference point of a locale. There's just no discussion of the place as a community, much less as one officially established. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability under WP:NPLACE (which is what the article claims the location to be) and the application of WPNGEO is iffy, at best. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 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.