Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceneda, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceneda, 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)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND. Gudde calls it a railroad station, Durham calls it a locality. Searching on newspapers.com for Ceneda in Kern County, CA papers brings up one result, a scanner error for the last name Cepeda. Searching for "Ceneda station" in California papers brings up nothing. Results for Ceneda in California papers are scanner errors for Canada and Orlando Cepeda. This doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked at a number of these, I made a suggestion on their talk page that the Nom might want to use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for some (most/all?) of these going forward. I may be mistaken in my assessment, so if anyone feels prod is not the right choice please speak up. Jeepday (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and most likely fails WP:GEOLAND as well; I agree that most of these would probably qualify for uncontroversial deletion Spiderone 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:40, 16 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.