Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teakettle Junction, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teakettle Junction, 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)

Another remnant of unincorporated community spam. This is a sign that has teakettles on it. There are a number of "Look at this silly thing in Death Valley!" pages with pictures of it like Atlas Obscura but this does not warrant its own article. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an area which does not pass WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes it clear that the place has coverage and it is easy to find more such as the Smithsonian. It therefore passes WP:GNG and the nomination is just blatant opinion contrary to core policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's clear WP:BEFORE wasn't followed as it took a 2 second Google search to find the Smithsonian article and I'm not following the nom's "spam" claim as this is not a business advertising itself. Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, as mentioned in the nom like the AtlasObscura page, and not everything mentioned as a small random curiosity warrants its own article. The spam is mass-production of "unincorporated community" sub-stubs that like this are not actually communities. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not buying WP:BEFORE was followed. AtlasObsura is not Smithsonian Magazine which was more than a "mention" and is in-depth and you made no reference of the of latter in the nom. Secondly, nobody is claiming this is a "community" as that is simply a straw man argument. Even the time you first prodded this, the lede stated it was a junction, not a community.[1] Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, I am not obligated to explicitly link every one of my search results! That's why I said "a number of" which also included that, and this is "like" the AO page. Not every one of the thousands of curiosities that Smithsonian magazine talks about needs its own article. YES someone DID call it a community in his mass-productions: [2], and YES when I prodded it the {infobox settlement} said "unincorporated community" right there at the top and was categorized as one, so there's no damn straw man. Screw your failure to AGF and calling me a liar. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can violate WP:CIVIL all you want, but you're just throwing another straw man argument. Nobody claims that WP:BEFORE requires you to link all your search results. If you did follow WP:BEFORE then you just ignored the in-depth Smithsonian piece. If you don't like the fact that in-depth coverage from Smithsonian covers things you don't think are notable, then you can make your case to change WP:GNG on its talk page. And at the time you prodded it, the lede states:
″Teakettle Junction is a junction in Inyo County, California."

That the phrase "unincorporated community" was in the infox doesn't change what the article is about. Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to Places_of_interest_in_the_Death_Valley_area#Teakettle_junction. WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 18 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.