Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calneva, 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)   Kadzi   (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calneva, 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 a station on the Western Pacific: you can read all the details of closing the station agency here. other than that, all I get is one person "of" there, but there never seems to have been much there there, and there isn't any now. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name sounded familiar only because of the casino, a separate thing. Another California place-name non-entity. --Lockley (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The casino does generate a lot of false hits, but it isn't anywhere near this spot. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be another railroad facility mistaken as a community. Looks pretty desolate--no evidence of any buildings. No hits to indicate it is a community or that it is notable in any way. Glendoremus (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entire chapter describes it in this book, it was clearly a legally recognised settlement with a post office and voter district. If it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG I'll eat my signature. ----Pontificalibus 06:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per having a book chapter on it. (Can't access the chapter, so I'll take your word.) Notable settlement. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments brought forth by Pontificalibus. That is sufficient for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 22 July 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.