Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rampart, 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. It's very chilly in here, I see the WP:SNOW has started to fall. BD2412 T 02:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rampart, 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)

Contested PROD. The original article cited only GNIS and Durham's place names gazetteer as sources, which are not reliable or indicators of notability. The user who removed the PROD added some content, which is appreciated, but it is sourced to a real estate listing, which I can't imagine is RS. There is very little information about this place, but even if the listing is accurate, it only states this was a vacation property that later became a lodge, not an "unincorporated community". So WP:GEOLAND is failed, and so is WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage about this place in RS. I suspect this got into GNIS because it had its own railroad stop, but that does not confer notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper clippings confirm [1] that it was the summer home of a Walters (or possibly Walter or Water) family, but don't get much more detailed than that. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Jfire (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional book source: [2]. However, it's self-published, so doesn't help establish notability. Jfire (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content was actually added in 2015, and is word-for-word identical with the real estate advertisement that was externally linked to. I don't trust the factual accuracy of this "history" that outright said that it was a good selling point, and even gave the purchase price; and Wikipedia should not be hosting barely edited advertisements at all, let alone long-expired advertisements. Needless to say, no proper reliable and independent history source has been proferred, and none turns up when I look for any. There's a self-published autobiography, and nothing else. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above evidence.James.folsom (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thanks everyone for taking the time to look. Looks like the potential sources are dead ends. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the information in the article is directed to a particular housing property there, not about the "community" itself. Per the above information, there is no evidence to suggest this is an actual "community" of any sort other than being a WP:GNIS fail. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 21:57, 4 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.