Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animpayamo, California

Animpayamo, 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)

This is a trial balloon for a set of former native settlements in Monterey County which represent yet another out-of-the-norm GNIS source. Someone at USGS found this list of these villages, and ran the whole thing into GNIS is spite of the fact that the only information on any of the is a name and a tribal/nation affiliation. GHits are next to nothing; GBooks comes up with (as far as I can determine) a number of places which reproduced the same list, for some reason: I get a lot of snapshot views, but the clip that's shown is always the same text. Not being able to see the ultimate source, I'm not terribly confident they were even in this county, and given all the various GNIS problems, I'm loathe to take their word on it when there aren't any coordinates. So here we have a point where the usual invocations of WP:GEOLAND break down. There is just no way these spots pass WP:GNG individually: at the moment, the information on each is actually possibly less than what each article says, constituting two sentences of which the second states what we don't know. Even as a group, it seems to me hard to argue that they've been written about at any length. Whatever we come up with for this one, I would expect to apply to the lot; but there's no way I'm going to do a group nom of 12-15 articles given the likelihood of someone taking it down procedurally and making me do everything twice. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was a similar discussion awhile back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astakiwi, California. Consensus there formed to delete because we couldn't find strong enough sourcing to pass WP:V. Hog Farm _Talk 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a redirect to List of Ohlone villages may be appropriate. Regardless who lived there, we need more than a context-free name to be notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand that non-notable places should be deleted, however, to my mind it does not make sense to remove or exclude information about former Native American settlements or villages. As to the 12–15 articles, if they all are the sites of former N.A. settlements, that info can be merged or redirected into the respective articles on the peoples. For example in the case of this one, it could be merged with Ohlone (Kalindaruk) - there are several sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. @Mangoe: I'm willing to look into the 12–15 articles to see if any of the content is worth merging if you send me a list. Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (EDIT: or redirect/merge per Reywas) - WP:V tells us what to do in this situation - we cannot even verify the existence of this settlement. We know GNIS is unreliable. We know the guy who created these articles did so without any analysis of the source but instead basically negligently dumping these GNIS stub articles all over wiki, so we can't just assume good faith on their having checked the original document. The article itself says we don't even know where this place is supposed to have been. This is all even before we get on to it failing WP:GEOLAND, which it very obviously does as there is no evidence of either legal recognition or of it being a WP:GNG pass (which as a bare minimum requires two instances of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources). This just ain't it. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The GNIS source is based on this, which is just a bare mention with a list with no explanation, sourced to whoever Taylor was, who in turn got their information from the "mission books". And given about how much the Spanish conquistadors seemed to really care about native culture, I'm not sure that we can really count a bare list dating back to the mission books as a particularly strong thread. I don't see how the context of that source even allowed GNIS to determine the county with certainty; all we are really given is that the old mission books say there was a Native American village of this name. Hog Farm _Talk 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better (comaplete and clearly legible) copies of the Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico and related mentions of Animpayamo can be found on the Internet Archive. Paul H. (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]