Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widgeon, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Widgeon, 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)

It's fairly late where I am, so maybe I stayed up too late and missed something, but I'm not seeing a WP:GEOLAND pass here. Not on topos, no GNIS entry, not in Gudde. Newspapers.com hits are for birds, a railroad station in Kern County, and a gun club in Kern County. Google books hits are for birds. I'm just not seeing notability here, although maybe I missed something. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hog Farm, you have my sincere sympathies. In this case the only coverage of a Widgeon in California I could find is this reference to an abandoned oil/gas drilling operation there (see page 68 here). Not a populated place, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm,Mangoe - we've had a lot of noms lately all with the same basic problem (i.e., WP:GEOLAND fails mass-created purely based on GNIS data) - maybe we could just do a general discussion? Some of these articles have proved saveable (e.g., Oriole, Kentucky) but for the California ones it really looks like maybe WP:PROD is a better way to go? I'm satisfied that you guys aren't just nom'ing these locations willy-nilly, I see you're doing an extensive WP:BEFORE because you don't want to delete stuff you don't have to. I think if GNIS is the only thing cited and its in the US, and you've given it a pass on Newspapers.com and come up with no stories, then maybe you should just PROD it and only bring it to AFD if there is at least some coverage (but not enough in your view). What do you guys think? FOARP (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, it has been fairly difficult to move multiple articles through deletion. Typically an editor who has not been involved in the past cites GNIS, or finds trivial coverage and they need to be brought up to speed. Also, what has happened is that some editors feel that not enough WP:BEFORE has been applied. It might be worth trying to group articles. For example, all articles in California that cite only Durham, that have no GNIS entry and that are railroad sidings could be a first pass. I dunno. We should probably broaden this conversation to a talk page somewhere. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography come to mind, but I believe more people would notice Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Cxbrx (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started PRODing the most blatant problems over the last week or so, see User:Hog Farm/PROD log#December 2020, where there are already almost 40. I'm trying to be judicious with PRODing, as some of these are notable, and I don't want to see notable articles deleted. However, single AFD noms run the risk of overwhelming the system. I just don't know if there's a good, efficient, way out of this beyond Carlossuarez46 looking through his own work and WP:G7-ing the ones that are problematic. I tried to go through all of the ones listed at Template:Kern County, California, but burnt out on Kern about halfway through. Have since been looking at Modoc and Imperial counties. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the PRODs, it was nice to see a list. Maybe the thing to do is to let the AfDs rest a bit, there is quite a bit of work to be done. Or, keep at it! I know what you mean about getting burned out. I made a pass through the Nevada counties and burned out with Clark County. Cxbrx (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I intend on taking a few days off from this to let the chips fall and work on responding to some comments at A-Class nominations of articles I've worked on. Once this batch gets filtered through, I'll start looking again. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to get a copy of Durham from the library in the coming days. I'm really wondering what it actually says for a lot of these like Mock, California, which is so obviously not a community (and short-lived mining camps don't count). I prodded Lamberts Corner, Washington, Sunset Beach, Washington, Schneiders Prairie, Washington, and a few others that blatantly misrepresented the linked source, so perhaps if we can see that even Durham fails to call these populated places, addressing them in bulk may be more in order. Soft deletions are always welcome with recreation if someone has a legitimate source for places that could actually be notable. I got burned out ages ago and there's still thousands of these in Indiana, Virginia, and New Jersey among others (in those cases often neighborhoods rather than railroads), so something beyond AFDs needs to be done. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Kentucky and West Virginia can be added to the list of states with all sorts of error stubs. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Durham sounds like a great idea. Frankly at this point, though, I think we're better just WP:TNTing the Durham/GNIS stubs and recreating the ones that can be recreated. There's thousands of these things and going through them one-by-one is just going to burn people out, and take more time than deletion/recreation. FOARP (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer carelessly misrepresented the source: Durham says under the Bayley entry on p354: "California Division of Highways' (1954) map has the name "Bayley" at a place located about 0.5 miles farther north, and has the name "Widgeon" along the railroad at or near present Bayley", not that it is a community or notable settlement. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding anything notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. Confirmed to not be in GNIS. Searching GBooks is tricky because the California Widgeon is a bird. However, searching for "widgeon california Bayley" finds [1] indicates that Widgeon was a station so WP:STATION applies. As this location is not legally recognized and is a station with very little, if any, coverage, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 20:13, 12 December 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.