Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bays, WV

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 no consensus. The problem here- in terms of assessing consensus- is that GEOLAND does not require a place to be populated, only to have at some time been populated. There has been enough material presented- pace the GNIS and its definition of 'locale'- to suggest that the requirements of GEOLAND are thus fulfilled. However, although there is clearly no absolte consensus to delte this article, there is still an issue in clarifying these definitions and how a locale or ghost town are inter-compatible. That discussion, of course, is for another place. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 15:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bays, WV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable enough, in addition to there being very few related results in an internet search. RES2773 (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too early, keep It's far too early to mark their page for deletion. The page was made about ten minutes ago, and it seems a bit harsh to PROD it, as you did earlier, especially to a newcomer. Also, if it's a town, it's almost certainly notable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. That's it, pure and simple. Article should never have been PRODed in the first place even though it was started by a drive-by, promotional (now blocked) user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. An initial search for sources doesn't yield much. The USGS calls this place a locale, not a populated place,(1535322) but other GNIS entries note a former school and a former church located nearby along with a former post office at an unknown location. The supplied references are not substantial, but this looks like a possible ghost town. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates for the school and the church are for a different location, in the south of the county near Nallen. Peter James (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Jjjjjjdddddd and Kudpung. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10 on July 2, 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I don't find this meets GEOLAND. There are no sources that show it is or was ever populated, or in any sense a community of any kind. GNIS lists it as "locale" only - which is defined as a place having human activity. GEOLAND requires population (i.e. people living there). The area today is apparently considered Birch River, West Virginia. There is no mention of Bays in this book on WV Place names [1]MB 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND, plain and simple. It's clear it exists, it's clear it was populated, good enough. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a "locale" it does not pass WP:GEOLAND. "Locale" is explicitly defined as "does not include populated places". If this place is a locale, it is therefore not populated. If it is not populated, it does not pass GEOLAND. Simple. There are no WP:RSes that indicate it was populated, so we cannot assume that it was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PMC. The US Geological Survey classifies it as a locale and explicitly states a locale is not a populated place. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above with additional evidence from MB and Peter James. There is no reliably sourced evidence that Bays was ever a populated place that satisfies GEOLAND. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PMC. Subject doesn't pass GEOLAND. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kudpung and GEOLAND. This Gbooks result shows that it was a populated place, no matter how small. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not seeing sufficient evidence that this is or ever was a concrete, populated place. I support the inclusion of all populated places; please ping me if evidence to the contrary surfaces. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Shawn in Montreal's source which, if reliable, would be sufficient to prove that this was a populated place once. Also, to discuss whether this could be merged/redirected to the current-day area if not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Shawn in Montreal's source and other arguments already made: a populated place, once notable always notable. It doesn't require an AFD for someone to merge it into another article about a larger place which could provide coverage about this, but we know so little about it that it is simplest to leave it separate for now. (And that is permanently okay to do, too.) --do ncr am 17:35, 29 July 2017 (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.