Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stegeman, 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) 22:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Stegeman, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's not clear why it takes so long for this to show up on the topos, as there is a railroad regulation case from 1914 concerning a carload of hay shipped from this point. But it is a rail spot, and at some point (the topos are a bit muddled on this) a large rice processing facility was put next to the tracks, courtesy of the Farmers Rice Cooperative, which now calls it the Stegeman Drying Facility. The rails are gone, and this plant is all there is to Stegeman. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy delete In Durham though not cited. Durham says "locality: 3.25 miles south-southwest of Princeton...", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92Talk 00:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 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.