Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animpayamo, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Redirect to Ohlone or to List of Ohlone villages ~~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]

This is an excellent proposal by Netherzone. Deleting each of them will flood this AfD (I can already see a lot of nominations and it takes a lot of time to evaluate each). I also agree that Wikipedia should not exclude information about Native American settlements. Of course, if no information is available we can consider merging or redirecting. I am willing to help out if needed.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:02, 15 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 (complete 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]

Delete - the lack of a verifiable and reliable source and basic data, e.g. exact location, size, and historic / prehistoric significance makes the creation of useful and proper Wikipedia about this Native American site impossible. unless someone can find adequate source material, Animpayamo fails WP:GEOLAND and lacks evidence of legal recognition or needed to pass WP:GNG. It should be deleted. Paul H. (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Delete Not at all notable enough for an article. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or potentially redirect, this provides no useful encyclopedic information and it's unlikely it will ever be able to. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ohlone villages. All we know is that it might have existed, but we don't exactly know where. A redirect is appropriate here.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per findings above. A redirect would normally be a good idea, except that this village isn't actually mentioned at the target, so it wouldn't help the reader much at all. Hog Farm _Talk 19:24, 16 February 2021 (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.