Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffetto, 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. ✗plicit 11:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raffetto, 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)

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 7#Raffetto, California. This article created in 2009 about an unincorporated community was turned to a redirect in 2020 with the reasoning this locale is not a community and never has been. The RfD decided that this was not a plausible redirect. Jay 💬 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jay 💬 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "Raffetto" that I can find was a placer mine near to Placerville, California, granted a licence in 1896 and in that year's State Mineralogist report as well as a few subsequent USACE listings up until 1900. The owner was one Giovanni Raffetto, whom I cannot verifiably identify with John Augustus Raffetto. It it possible as Giovanni Raffetto's mine was using Weber Creek, which runs south of Placerville, for dumping waste according to the various newspapers that it was reported in. However, it was John's father Dominico who was the miner. John was a hotelier. On the gripping hand, this is approximately 30km distant from and a different river to, the article's location and clearly not this place. This Raffetto disappears when the dam appears. There's nothing in the El Dorado history books, which have J. A. Raffetto in depth (from which I got the aforementioned), about a Raffetto on Silver Creek. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Aerials are no help but topos show a single building at the end of a road. I cannot get at either Durham or Gudde at the moment but given the misrepresentations of the former we have come across, one cannot presume that either of them says it was a town. There's just no evidence here beyond a location. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local newspapers have nothing, there is no cemetery recorded in that area. There is an old foundation nearby. The usual indicators of people living there are absent. There is definitely no significant coverage. I believe something was there along time ago, probably gold rush related. But, as of 1901 when newspaper coverage starts it doesn't exist.James.folsom (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just remove links to the redirects or something, don't waste people's time with RFDs and AFDs on what's obviously not notable – what now has the outright lie that this "is an unincorporated community". Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 17 January 2024 (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.