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.
Another remnant of unincorporated community spam. This is a sign that has teakettles on it. There are a number of "Look at this silly thing in Death Valley!" pages with pictures of it like
Atlas Obscura but this does not warrant its own article.
Reywas92Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination makes it clear that the place has coverage and it is easy to find more such as the
Smithsonian. It therefore passes
WP:GNG and the nomination is just blatant
opinion contrary to
core policy.
Andrew🐉(
talk) 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's clear
WP:BEFORE wasn't followed as it took a 2 second Google search to find the Smithsonian article and I'm not following the nom's "spam" claim as this is not a business advertising itself.
Oakshade (
talk) 18:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I did see that, as mentioned in the nom like the AtlasObscura page, and not everything mentioned as a small random curiosity warrants its own article. The spam is mass-production of "
unincorporated community" sub-stubs that like this are not actually communities.
Reywas92Talk 19:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not buying WP:BEFORE was followed. AtlasObsura is not Smithsonian Magazine which was more than a "mention" and is in-depth and you made no reference of the of latter in the nom. Secondly, nobody is claiming this is a "community" as that is simply a
straw man argument. Even the time you first prodded this, the lede stated it was a junction, not a community.
[1]Oakshade (
talk) 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oakshade, I am not obligated to explicitly link every one of my search results! That's why I said "a number of" which also included that, and this is "like" the AO page. Not every one of the thousands of curiosities that Smithsonian magazine talks about needs its own article. YES someone DID call it a community in his mass-productions:
[2], and YES when I prodded it the {infobox settlement} said "unincorporated community" right there at the top and was categorized as one, so there's no damn straw man. Screw your failure to AGF and calling me a liar.
Reywas92Talk 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
You can violate
WP:CIVIL all you want, but you're just throwing another
straw man argument. Nobody claims that
WP:BEFORE requires you to link all your search results. If you did follow WP:BEFORE then you just ignored the in-depth Smithsonian piece. If you
don't like the fact that in-depth coverage from Smithsonian covers things you don't think are notable, then you can make your case to change WP:GNG on its talk page. And at the time you prodded it, the lede states:
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.