Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irmulco, 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.

Irmulco, California

Irmulco, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD. This location is non-notable; coordinates given lccate to empty forest. This is one of dozens of mass-created stubs on nonexistent California locations created by the same editor during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS coordinates. The fact that there was once a post office by this name does not establish notability; this was likely just a temporary logging camp. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm going to withdraw my recommendation that the article be deleted. Another user has added some reasonably good sourcing and I think the article now has enough to keep. The article's current state is exactly how articles about small vanished communities should be...i.e., not just "Xyz is a location at zzz coordinates, and it had a post office in 1858". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment This an example of place which was definitely "there" in some sense but about which we can't really say anything definite. We can't even really characterize it well. I've found one reference to a public school there, and another passing reference to people living there, but as the nom here says, the name and location tends to suggest it was a logging camp of perhaps greater than usual permanence. There's some possibility that a history of the logging railroad might have more information, but without that it's hard to defend keeping this. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like many places in the American west, it was a settlement for as long as the mineral seam lasted, or the lumber mill was hiring, etc, and then when the industrial or commercial interest checked out, it faded away, but it was a substantial settlement for a time in a thinly populated part of the world. It's part of the answer to the question "where did the redwoods go?" and I think it's notable enough to stay. jengod (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that places like this shouldn't be erased from history, but we need reliable sources about them if we're going to host an article saying anything. All we have is a couple of statements that it was a point on a railroad map and there was a short-lived post office in the vicinity, neither of which cuts it for

WP:N purposes. If anyone can find more, then of course we can keep the article and say more. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you for expanding the article; this is exactly what we need! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2023 (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.