Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton, California (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus that notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton, 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)

So, here we are again, revisiting a 4th class post office cited only to Durham. Searching is a spray of false hits but the only relevant ones either say that it is a post office or fail to indicate that it was a town of any size. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While I tend to have a soft spot for ghost towns, I can't justify this article staying around.Kieran207 talk 14:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligent misrepresentation of source. Durham only says under Madeline entry "Postal authorities established Ashton post office..." not that it's a community. Nothing claims or establishes notability here. Reywas92^Talk 07:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also,this has to be like the 1000th Lassen County ghost town article to come through here.--Kieran207 talk 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now I Know why, A user named Carlossuarez46 has mass created possibly thousands of stubs about California ghost towns that may or may not have actually existed. I estimate around 470-500 of these articles have been deleted or proposed/Nominated deletion.--Kieran207 talk 15:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've been able to PROD some, but this one had to go through separately, and it has been difficult to get group noms through. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a notable place. The history connected with this shows why we should go to making every new article have to go through AfD. We spent far too long valuing quantity over quality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We tried that, it was called Nupedia, and it didn't do so well!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:16, 13 January 2021 (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.