Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucerne, Kings 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 delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucerne, Kings 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 was the switch to a short spur servicing what some topos identify as a winery. The latter appears to have been replaced by a house, sitting in the midst of endless groves and fields; the main line is still there but there's no trace of the route of the spur. Rather obviously not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across the following statement in a USDA soil report: "At Lucerne Vineyard a branch spur is built southward about a mile to facilitate shipments from the large warehouses of that company." Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:04, 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. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG and any other applicable guideline Spiderone 14:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. The prolific spam article creator should be nominated for account deletion, especially considering the spam creation seems to be continuing. // Timothy :: talk 15:25, 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.