Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Hoaglin Place, 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. Sandstein 08:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Hoaglin Place, California

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A set of "Place"s, all in the forests of northern California, all of them single (or no) buildings, all of them GNIS dumps, and none of which has any evidence of being an actual settlement. These are rather difficult to search since they crank out false hits for several reasons, but I got nothing for any of them except for one "cemetery" reference on Find-a-Grave for a single burial. There are a lot of "Place"s in California, and nominating the lot in a single shot is too likely to get procedural resistance, but I really don't want to crank through fifty or so single nominations that are all the same. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other nominees in this group are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This PDF contains information about Willie Hoaglin Place, more than any other source I could find. MarkZusab (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails WP:V, not communities, not notable ranches; also candidates for prod or redirect per WP:BURDEN. Website above has documents about several homesteads in Trinity County and in Mendocino National Forest, though I don't see how any warrant encyclopedia entries. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all GNIS dumps, not communities. The Willie Hoaglin place solararch.org PDF is fascinating and would probably be well included somewhere, but having done searches on all of them, none of these are notable. Also demonstrates how these places were added to topo maps and then digitised into the GNIS. I also don't mind procedural nominations if the nominator "shows their work" - what was searched, what was found, why what was found isn't notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Ranches do not meet GEOLAND or GNG criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seem to be merely ranches, no independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.