Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupiter, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter, 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)

Location that does not appear to be notable. Article was PRODded in 2020, but PROD was declined on the basis that the place is listed as "populated" by the USGS; as far as I can tell it was never brought to AfD for discussion. I can't find anything about this site other than passing mentions in mining, water resources, and forestry reports (same when I search for the name "Philadelphia Diggings", which may have been an early name for the site). This book: [1] might possibly have something, but it may be a work of fiction (I can't access the book to be sure). Without any solid evidence this was actually a populated place, it fails our criteria for notability of locations, and without significant coverage it fails WP:GNG. Probably this was just a non-notable mine. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On further searching I note the name "Jupiter" did not appear on any USGS topographic map until 1948 (Columbia, CA, 1:62500)[2]; earlier maps show nothing at the site.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the Internet Archive, I searched for the From the Backwoods of Old Tuolumne by Russell C. Grigsby, publsihed by Grigsby, 1943, the book mentioned by WeirdNAnnoyed. All I could find was a very short, scathing review of it that states, impart : It is not history-.... Being self-published (privately printed) disqualifies it from consideration as a source. Paul H. (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can point to Philadelphia Diggings in Tuolumne in an 1894 California State Geologist report. So that's definitely documented, although not nearly in depth enough for a standalone article. Hydraulic mining started in 1901 by the Stockton Gravel Mining Company, apparently, according to a contemporary trade magazine. Both Miller and the Guddes say that Jupiter is the Philadelphia Diggings. The water surveys are documenting Knights Creek and Eagle Creek, and don't even say what "Jupiter" is. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches, and especially the searches above lead me to the conclusion that this was just a mine, and any unincorporated community was the miners. Even accepting such existed, and that the community briefly mustered a post office , it would have no presumed notability per GEOLAND, and we would need sources to meet WP:GNG per nom. None found so it does not pass GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. Non-legally recognized places such as Jupiter must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. In particular Jupiter fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED, I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Jupiter fails WP:NRV as well. policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it, but this appears to not be or never was a populated place so nothing to merge.James.folsom (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2023 (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.