Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rancho San Juan Capistrano del Camote


 * 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.  So Why  12:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Rancho San Juan Capistrano del Camote

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A ranch where in 1860 a bloody double murder happened. And that's it. It existed only for a very short time, has no special importance otherwise. If it were a biography, we'ld call it a WP:BIO1E, but we don't have the same for places. Searches fail to provide further interesting sources, just passing mentions in lists. Fram (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The murders were in 1858 and it was an important event in San Luis Obispo County history. This crime led to the destruction of a gang of murderers and robbers that had plagued the region for years. It was very similar to the elimination of the Flores Daniel Gang, but these guys were much better organized and led and far more ruthless, Until this one event they left no witnesses to their crimes, and in this crime they did and that brought about their downfall.Asiaticus (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of the Ranchos of California that did not get approval by a U. S. Court. It does not mean it did not get granted by Mexican government and exist for a time in California. Interestingly it was granted by two New Mexicans that raised sheep there, as was common in New Mexico at the time.  A large trade existed between Alta California and New Mexico bringing woolen goods from New Mexico over the Old Spanish Trail (trade route) to trade for horses and mules.  This rancho was a begining of a trend of home grown wool in Alta California.Asiaticus (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The murder may be notable, or the gang. That doesn't mean that the rancho is notable. Fram (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is notable in its status as a Rancho of California and as the locale of a historic place. There are plenty of those on that list with less notability than this one, and none of those will be deleted.Asiaticus (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND WP:GEOFEAT.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Every farm and many houses used to have names, they are not "populated places" in the sense of that guideline. A populated place has a community of different families, not one farm with some farm hands. So GEOLAND doesn't apply. GEOFEAT is the one we can discuss here. I don't see where the rancho has been discussed extensively. "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The building has very little historic, social, ... importance, the only importance it has is that it was the scene of a double murder. That doesn't seem sufficient to meet GEOFEAT though, the rancho itself isn't the focus of this coverage but just a background setting. Fram (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I raised GEOLAND due to the size of this land grant (on which a rancho was located). This was a 44,284 acre grant - or roughly 179 square kilometers. This is a bit larger than District of Columbia - and roughly the size of a smallish county (e.g. Union County, New Jersey). This isn't a family dwelling (with a couple of farm hands) - but rather an administrative unit similar to the landed gentry in Spain - e.g. a Manor.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A place where no one lives (well, there probably were plenty of Native Americans, but they sadly didn't count then) and which has no administatration and so on, is not an "administrative unit". If it had become a county or something similar, it would be a "geoland" cause, but in this case it disappeared before it could become a real "populated place" and remained a very temporary large ranch with a sad history. Fram (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There were most definitely probably many Native Americans toiling away there - the whole rancho system replaced the previous mission system. The holder of the ranch would exercise significant authority over whomever was in his bounds - perhaps in an undocumented fashion, but that is true of other forms of government as well. If you are taking an axe to this one (and I aware this is Other stuff exists) - there are many smaller ranchoes (this is a 10 sq leauge one - which is on the large side) without a significant history post Alta Californian on List of ranchos of California that were granted in 1845-6 (close to the fall Spanish California) - e.g. Rancho Chimiles, Rancho Boca de la Playa, Rancho Las Baulines, Rancho Los Huecos, Rancho Cañada de San Miguelito. Some of these seem to exist just due to the grant (and subsequent legal action) - and not much else. In this case we have a land grant + murder. The murder does detract from the importance of the grant itself (if there is such).Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GEOLAND - Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. - meets populated legally recognized place. It definitely had a population greater than 1, PhinDeli Town Buford, Wyoming.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many houses and farms had at one time a population of 1 or more. That doesn't make them "populated places" in the Wikipedia sense. A populated place is a grouping of houses which have a common name, not the name of one house, farm, company, ... The difference though is not always clear, so I guess we can argue this endlessly. (as for why I picked this one for AfD, new page patrolling; this one was new and caught my eye, I didn't look for the worst or least notable or anything, so I can imagine that there are similar articles more worthy of deletion than this one). Fram (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even a wasteland that has never had a permanent population can be notable if it is the site of historically significant events. The bandit attack reported here qualifies, although additional sourcing would be good. bd2412  T 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an automatic keep under GEO--it's a private estate, nota jurisdiction, and has no more legal standing than any other (though I am not sure whether Ranchos of this sort in the period might not have had not have some sort of informal or  manorial jurisdiction over the inhabitants). But it is a very large estate, sufficiently important in its historical period.  DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (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.