Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Walker Town, 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. Consensus that it meets WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Walker Town, 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)

Notability not proven. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. See:

[1] - "A settlement sprang up at the mine, known as Joe Walker Town. There were at least 100 men connected in some way to the mine. Twelve of these men had their families with them. A boarding house was needed to feed the single men".
[2] - "A sizeable settlement sprang up around the mine, known as Joe Walker Town. More than a dozen families comprised the burg, plus at least 100 single men from the mine." Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The town was a substantial settlement that grew up around mining operations there. At least one source (which I have added as further reading) gives a detailed history of the mining there which will allow the page to be expanded for that if nothing else. Settlements that are not legally recognised (and has it been established that this town was not legally recognised?) are usually local names for neighbourhoods of a larger town and are merged up to the next highest level. That is not the case here, it is a definite, stand-alone town with no major settlements for many miles. Nor is it just a farm or small group of holiday homes (also common reasons for nominating alleged settlements). Google maps shows there are still buildings at the site with parked vehicles, so I am not entirely convinced by the claim that it no longer exists. That would not be a valid reeason for deletion in any case – once natable, always notable. SpinningSpark 08:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND notability proven per Magnolia677's sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if reliable sources exist talking about this place's notability as a settlement, it existed enough for us to have an article about it (even if it's not a 100kb banger of an article). jp×g 05:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2022 (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.