Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Baker, 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 redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

West Baker, California

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this one meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Topos show two buildings and a borax mine. The only coverage I can turn up for this place on newspapers.com, google, or google books is for the West Baker mine, and the coverage appears to be largely trivial. No indication there was ever a proper community here. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Comment Redirect: I added a 1947 USGS map showing West Baker.  Despite showing some buildings, the mine appears to be the only reason West Baker was "populated" at one time.  It appears this mine is now the Rio Tinto Borax Mine ("the largest borax mine in the world, producing nearly half the world's borates"), so we could redirect there if we don't want to keep both articles.  UPDATE: After reading more, i definitely think this and (Baker) should redirect to the mine article.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a former settlement. Many ghost towns have wikipedia articles. Worth keeping for now.SWP13 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - The relevant notability guideline is WP:GEOLAND. Just being a former settlement doesn't quite cut it, as GEOLAND requires the community to have been legally recognized at some point in its existence to be notable.  There's just no indication that this place ever had legal recognition as a community.  Appearing on a map isn't enough, and there's a strong consensus over the course of many AFDs that the GNIS reference doesn't cut it - see the essay WP:GNIS for an explanation as to why not.  There was a place here, although I haven't seen evidence that there was an actual community here in addition to the mine.  However, being a real place does not equal automatic notability. West Baker would need to pass WP:GNG, and there just isn't enough coverage for that. Hog Farm Bacon 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Merge or Delete or Redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. No post office. West Baker was at best an interim name of a mine and the locale West Baker is not notable, or is superseded by another article.   I found no evidence of any settlement at this locale, I found no articles about "so and so living, dying or visiting West Baker".  West Baker is not listed in ghosttowns.com (a fairly definitive though not necessarily WP:RS).  Searching newspapers.com for ' "West Baker" in California ' yielded hits for "West Bakers.", which is probably West Bakersfield.  Searching newspapers.com for ' "West Bakers" Borax ' yielded a single mining article: .  Searching newspapers.com for ' "Suckow Mine" in California' yields a number of hits, the best is a History the Suckow Mine. That article does not mention West Baker, so it is no help for this article and the Suckow Mine is mentioned in the Rio Tinto Borax Mine article.  Searching for "West Baker" should not be confused with Baker, California, which is much more well known.  Presumably, West Baker is west of the barely notable Baker, Kern County, California, which at least Durham reports to have had a post office (though that post office is not listed in the post office list I regularly use).  As West Baker has no legal recognition and the trivial coverage indicates that it at best a non-notable interim name in a mine covered elsewhere, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met.  For there to be an article about West Baker, I'd like to see a WP:RS source that indicates that West Baker was more than the interim name for a mine.  Merging to Rio Tinto Borax Mine would be fine.Cxbrx (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I usually don't comment after I've voted and the article has been relisted, but I found no evidence that West Baker was anything but the interim name of a mine.  I found no evidence that anyone lived there - I found no articles stating so and so visited from, lived at or died at West Baker.  West Baker was the non-notable interim name of a mine that is covered elsewhere, there is no evidence that there was a community that had any function other than supporting a single mine.  The West Baker article could be redirected to Rio Tinto Borax Mine so as to avoid someone accidentally recreating a West Baker article.  Or, it could be deleted.  However, what ever happens, there should not be a standalone "West Baker, California" article because West Baker is not a notable community.  Eddie891: could you explain why you relisted instead of deleting or redirecting? I see that perhaps my "Merge or Delete" muddied the consensus, it would help me know how better to annotate these votes. Cxbrx (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been better to !vote 'delete or redirect' if that was the case, because 'merge' is not the same as 'delete'. When I relisted there was one comment (leaning redirect) by an established user, one 'keep' !vote by an established user, one delete !vote (nom), and one 'merge or delete' !vote (yours), not quite a consensus, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's a big help. I've changed my !vote to delete or redirect.  I appreciate you and the other admins taking the time to go through these and adjudicate them.  With so many geography articles for deletion, it seems like the typical pattern is that a few editors are reviewing most of the articles with occasional different editors chiming in.  Hopefully, this AfD will get some more input.  Cxbrx (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed my comment to "redirect". If I am a reader of wikipedia, the best context to learn about the locale once called "West Baker" is in connection with the current mining operations.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. There is no evidence this was a settlement or had legal recognition of any kind, its just a couple of buildings to support a mine. Even if there was some evidence people lived here, WP:GEOLAND states populated places without legal recognition are evaluated based on GNG and there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth required by GNG. No objection to delete, but redirects are cheap.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  12:27, 19 January 2021 (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.