Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shumway, 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. Salvio 13:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Shumway, California

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Topos show a small cluster of buildings which resolve out on GMaps to a farmstead with outbuildings. I get lots of hits on people named Shumway but nothing significant on this place. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  19:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak Keep Shumway had a post office (see also postmaster at Shumway) thus #1 of WP:GEOLAND applies. Here are trivial clippings from newspapers.com when I search for "Shumway Lassen" that indicate that people lived there: married in 1903 at Shumway, someone in town from Shumway in 1893, same guy from Shumway in town in 1890, same guy from Shumway in town in 1891. I did not check Google Books.  I agree that there is not significant coverage in newspapers.com, but the post office means that #1 of WP:GEOLAND applies. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Prior to RFD, in rural areas one had to go to the post office to get one's mail, so there were post offices spread pretty thickly over the land in any place that could accommodate them, including people's houses. They had to have a name because that's how the system worked before zip codes, but it didn't mean the place was anything like a town. Isoalted railroad stations, for example, were routine. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right, here is a list of the postmasters, most of them are obviously members of the same family.  Hut 8.5  10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a different opinion about what "legally recognized" means, but it seems like I've not been very successful about convincing others of my view, so I'm changing this to a Weak Keep so as to not block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, I don't agree that having a post office necessarily means a place is legally recognised. I am rather astonished at the lengths people will go to in order to keep articles about populated places, with any other topic the type of references linked above would be wholly inadequate to write an article without heading into original research.  Hut 8.5  10:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that you posted the same delete justification to six different AfDs. By any chance do you have any input in the   Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place? or  GEOLAND is self-contradictory – what is a "legally recognized place"?  Cxbrx (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did in fact post that intentionally because the same rationale applies. I have no input on GEOLAND but I believe your interpretation is flawed.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as per - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:29, 14 August 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.