Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Ann, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Ann, California

Fort Ann, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

THis is a test run for a much larger tranche of California place stubs which were copied into WP from Durham's California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State without reference to other sources. In this particular case, a look in GNIS shows it to be the "Fort Ann Mine" (GNIS entry), so it's clearly not a notable community or even a community at all, but that's not the point. The thing is that there is a great deal of labor to be wasted in going over each of these and fishing for sources and either not finding anything or finding that it's not a community. I'd rather nominate the lot of them as gazetteer dumps and let someone recreate them individually if real material can be found.) Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one does actually have a bit of coverage [1] [2] [3] [4], but the sources confirm that this was indeed just a mine in an area with many mines and that claims of a military post are unlikely.

In this case it might be possible to write an article if more/better sources can be found, but I agree with Mangoe's suggestion to

WP:TNT anything that's based solely on gazetteers and the like. We do a disservice to our readers by maintaining hundreds of poorly-sourced and often inaccurate stubs, and the work of searching for sources should be done by those who wish to keep and expand them. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Generic mine, not a notable community. The bulk-produced lot should go. Reywas92^Talk 07:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Former verifiable populated place, close to 100 years of human habitation/activity around it. I added a bit to the article a few days ago.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is literally a gold mine and so it was naturally noticed and so is notable. Place names should not be deleted in some crude and disruptive manner because it has long been accepted that
  there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, have notified the mining wikiproject of this afd by leaving a message on their talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew and Milowent, above. Might need to be renamed to the name of the mine? I didn't look into the fort claim, but th mine is certainly verified by RSs, and there's no reason to delete it because of (apparent ) pique over it being a gazeteer entry. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,It is notable with its gold mines. Alex-h (talk) 20:05, 5 July 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.