Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panamint Springs, 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. Closing this for numerous reasons as a keep at this point. Feel free to examine things on the talk page, proceed accordingly, with civility. You can also re-nominate, if needed, but hopefully we'll sort it out. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panamint Springs, 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)

Another Inyo County resort: its website is the first Ghit. Every reference I find to the name is either the resort itself or to it as a locale or dot on the map. It doesn't seem notable as a business. Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak keep, It seems notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of sources mentioning the site's accomodations, but no evidence this is a community. Most content in article is fluff. Panamint Valley could mention the motel. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a definite community/population center, albeit small, and it did in fact have a post office [1]. Oakshade (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation says specifically that the post office was established to serve visiting tourists. In any case we have long ago determined that a post office in the US does not imply a surrounding community. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unsurprising that a remote motel in a then-national monument may have postal service, but "serv[ing] the tourists" is not the same as being a community. It mentions Scotty's Castle as also having a post office but that's likewise just a ranch tourists visited and stayed at. If this article is kept it should be rewritten as about the resort itself rather than pretending to be a town because the motel's proprietors lived at the property. Places of interest in the Death Valley area may be a merge target. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's good enough for the USPO, Google Maps [2], the Inyo County official website [3] (where Panamint Springs is listed as one of the "communities" in District 5), the National Park Service (which says that Darwin Falls is "Located just west of Panamint Springs ...") [4], and Expedia [5], then it belongs on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps imports its data from GNIS and also labels industrial railroad spur Susie, WA and is not determinant of being notable or a community. "Located just west of Panamint Springs" is accurate but does not mean it is a community, nor do these sites in the area preclude mention at Places of interest in the Death Valley area. Expedia's page is utter bullshit. It's a single motel and campsite owned by one family, it is not a town, and has neither "motels" nor "hotels". The operators of the resort residing there does not make a community. The resort does "not receive U.S. Mail deliveries" so it's obviously not good enough for the USPO. Reywas92^Talk 07:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you know better than the officials of Inyo County about what is and what isn't a community in their county. [6]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Yilloslime (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Update: The article is now about the resort rather than the place, but I'm not seeing that WP:GNG is met either. Yilloslime (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are of the opinion that the officials of Inyo County don;t know what is and isn't a community in their county? [[7]

Comment I did a requested page move. Article is now at Panamint Springs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz You really shouldn't have moved the article. One of the participants here basically hijacked the article and rewrote it to be about the resort and not the community, but -- as we can see from the Inyo County official website -- it *is* a community. I assume that the request came from that editor. Your page move basically usurped the AfD discussion. I believe you should undo it and allow the AfD process to play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official website calls it a resort, along with TripAdvisor. News clippings [8][9][10], among others in the archives, call it a resort. Content that reflects the sources is not "hijacking": Do NOT remove this sourced content from the article again. There is absolutely nothing there besides the resort, all owned by a single company and consisting of a motel, campsites, a restaurant, and service station. Inyo County official website also lists "Panamint Springs" as a local business that received covid aid, and even the business's proprietors as the only residents would be considered a "community" of coworkers, it is not the same as a town or village that would have an article title presenting it as such. The article's subject should be about a resort per the sources, rather than pretending the owners and employees are a community or populated place and the resort just happens to be located within it. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - This AfD is now worthless and should be considered invalid. The basic argument of the "delete" voters is that Panamint Springs, California is a resort and not a community. One of those delete voters went and totally re-wrote the article so that it was about the resort and not the community -- a community which the officials of Inyo County list as existing ias one of the communities in their "District 5". By WP:HIJACKING the article in that manner, and then asking an admin to move the article to another name, that editor poisoned the well, and should be sanctioned for doing so.
This AfD should be closed as invalid, the article restored from its hijacked state to the status quo ante and a new AfD opened with the article fully protected and an admonition to participants at the new AfD not to repeat the hijacking. This is the only fair way to come to a true consensus about the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz I have to say I cannot find record of that request, and I agree that it has caused discord here. That said, the presenting problem continues to be that the only Panamint Springs is by all evidence completely encompassed by the resort. And it seems to me that too much is being made of the passage on the Inyo website, as looking at the other supervisor pages reveals different language and mostly lists places which are CDPs, as well as what appear to be subdivisions and the vast pseudo-town that is (or in reality isn't) Charleston View. It's hardly an official List of Communities. Mangoe (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a right to be accurate, whether it is at AFD or not. Nothing in the current version of the article is inaccurate. It is a resort – as the status quo ante described it with its history and features! The employees can live at the resort/accomodations/facilities and it's still a resort. Yes under a dictionary definition of the word "community", that people live on-site as a social group in a locality, it is a community, but it should not be treated as such – on the level of a town, village, CDP – in the encyclopedia, as the history and substance is about the resort, not the population. There is no basis whatsoever for sanctioning for adding citations to an article with sourced content that reflects it, though I apologize for the move request that did not need to be done during this discussion. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recently declined a request at WP:RFPP to fully protect this article because of the changes that were being made to it during an AfD. I declined it because that isn't what page protection is for. Looking through the history of the page and reading through this AfD, I have a few comments about the process, but I'm not offering any opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Firstly, it's ok to edit articles during an AfD, per WP:EDITATAFD (and good-faith improvements to an article during an AfD shouldn't be reverted only because they were made during an AfD). It's even ok to move articles during an AfD. However, it's also true that heavily editing and moving articles during an AfD can disrupt the discussion and make it very difficult for the closing admin to determine consensus, because many voters are discussing totally different versions of the article throughout the course of the AfD. My suggestion to everyone here: let the AfD run its course. If people want to edit the article, let them edit the article. Definitely don't start an edit war over it. If, at the conclusion of the AfD, you believe that the result was tainted by heavy editing of the article, and you still believe that there are policy-based reasons that the current version of the article should be deleted, then start another AfD soon after this one ends and explain your reasoning in the nomination statement. While it's unusual to run AfDs back-to-back like that, I think it would be reasonable to do so if there is a good-faith argument that the first AfD was disrupted, as long as there are still valid reasons to delete the improved article. I'd also recommend that the closing admin provide their opinion on whether the discussion was disrupted to the point that a speedy renomination would be reasonable. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Panamint Springs is a business but there are individuals residing on-site that are not employees, including and beyond families. As a business it is also notable, being one of 3 main lodging areas within Death Valley NP, the western gateway to the park, and having a long history dating back to the 1930s. It's also the only lodging, large campground, restaurant, and fuel stop within Panamint Valley. If other DV area landmarks, like Teakettle Junction; Ballarat, CA; and Skidoo, CA; all have Wikipedia pages, why shouldn't Panamint Springs?

Also-- There are other things near the resort that are still referred to as being part of "Panamint Springs" that are not owned by the company. E.g. the old, unused Caltrans station south/west of the Cassell property.

— Preceding

unsigned comment added by Rafikim (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (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.