Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Mountain, 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. I'm also moving it to Blue Mountain City. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountain, California[edit]

[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)

There is a Blue Mountain in California, but it is two counties away, and I have searched the entire length of Licking Fork and not found anything that could possibly be this place, nor can I find a text reference that is definitely about such a place. Plainly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Guess what? It had a post office. Yes, others don't agree with me that this fulfills legal recognition of WP:GEOLAND. The Gold Camps book has a mention that has a bit of description of the location. I agree that it is not in GNIS, which does not help its notability. There is also a book, "Blue Mountain City and Mitchell Mill." One could argue that this book is not a WP:RS, but there are a number of similar publications for ghost towns, so I think it is a reasonably reliable source. Newspapers.com has a few mentions of "Blue Mountain City", I added two to the article. Clearly, there was a town there and there was coverage (book, newspaper articles), so #2 of WP:GEOLAND is fulfilled. Cxbrx (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this is kept, suggest that the article mentions that Blue Mountain is also the name of the surrounding gold district and includes "Black Wonder, Gold King and Heckendorn mines." - Gold Districts of California (page 31). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The full text of Gold Districts of California can be downloaded as a PDF file from Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons. There is no need to hassle with the paywall of Google Books version, which is linked above, for the full version. Paul H. (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added the "Gold Districts of California" citation and added the destination URL and PDF to archive.org. Cxbrx (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks all:) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it passed requirements at one time then it passes requirements now. We have articles on former settlements with little more than a mound structure that's been excavated by archaeologist and well we should. Articles on former settlements, villages and towns should be kept when they can be verified through reliable maps, books and documentation. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the past , there would have been noquestion, but our requirements have tightened, and we must judge by the present rules. I think there's enough evidence here, even using them. There's probably enough in the sources to expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 31 October 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.