Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centerville, Alpine County, 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. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville, Alpine County, 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)

this is one of the biggest messes I have come across in reviewing these GNIS-dump artcles, and about the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done. To begin with, the name of the place is "Centerville Flat", not Centerville. Not being able to get to the map that GNIS cites, the phrase "State Historical Landmark" suggests that there is some sort of marker on the side of the road. And indeed there is, and since it's in California the Google Car got there, and you can read the classic white-on-brown wooden park service sign, and it says, "OLD MINING TOWN SITE OF CENTERVILLE FLAT". Only this is not the end of the story, because this page says that it is the site of an old sawmill town, except that this references says that, yes, it was a sawmill, but places it on the opposite side of Markleeville. What it is now is a campground. Maybe an article needs to be written on Centerville Flat, but the present article is absolutely wrong. Searching is extremely hindered by the existence of no less than nine other Centervilles in California, but as soon as I do anything to limit searching to this county, I get a very few hits, and the only informative ones all say Centerville Flat and not Centerville, including the topo maps. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Regarding the location, I interpret "above Markleeville" to mean "upstream of Markleeville" which would be consistent with its location on the North-flowing East Fork of the Carson River. If there was significant coverage, a move to Centerville Flat would be appropriate, but I'm just not finding anything to support a standalone article for this run-of-the-mill (heh) timber/mining camp. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Striking for now since new sources clarify that it was a town/village. Will reassess notability after expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and move to Centerville Flat, California~~.After further digging, most sources I'm seeing refer to the town simply as Centerville. CJK09 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC) I don't see a need to use TNT here. Distinguishing between actual towns and run-of-the-mill work camps can be difficult in 1800s California, but this one seems to be consistently referred to as a town. Removing the GNIS crap doesn't require deletion, and I think there's enough to work with to write a stub of two or three paragraphs. I also expect I'll find more stuff once I get a chance to look through some old newspaper archives I have access to, and the webarchive history of a couple historical society websites that are now offline. CJK09 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion: in this case now would be "move and do not leave a redirect." My thought was that someone would write a new article at the correct name but in any case there is no Centerville in Alpine County. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: I'm curious why you call this a "run-of-the-mill work camp" when four of the sources cited specifically state that Centerville was not a mining or timber camp, and nothing in the article states that it was? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I was saying the opposite - that it's not a run-of-the-mill work camp. CJK09 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: My apology, it was User:Dlthewave that said that. I'm curious why you would change the name to "Centerville Flat", when all of the sources cited call this historic town--with its tavern, stores, homes, streets, and hotel--"Centerville"? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my vote since I was mistaken in my assessment. "Centerville" and "Centerville Flat" both appear in the new sources that have been added; let's wait til the editing has settled down to see which one is more prevalent. –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple reliable sources cited in the article list this as a populated place, with roads, houses, stores, a tavern, and a hotel. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough to talk about references to "Centerville". As I noted above, there are nine other sites called "Centerville" in California, so any reference has to be shown to be referring to this spot and not one of the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I have carefully scrutinized each reference, and each is about the location in Alpine County. Please see this source which states: "Centerville, Alpine County, small village with stores and a tavern..." Moreover, all of the sources corroborate each other, and some either give directions to this location, or include a map to this exact location. If you have reason to suggest this in incorrect, please state your reasons. If you're just saying stuff because other editors have found multiple reliable sources to support the existence of a place "the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done", then I'm not sure how to respond. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple reliable sources cited.Djflem (talk) 18:19, 23 May 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.