Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karlo, 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. The "keep" opinions appear unpersuasive, as they seem to conflate this locality with a nearby archeological site, the Karlo site, which may be notable, but would be a separate topic. The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of distinguishing between those two subjects. Sandstein 08:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karlo, 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)

Another fairly isolated passing siding and water stop); at least this one has a road to it but I can find no indications of a town. The name is used as a locale, especially with reference to the Karlo Site, an archaeological site of some importance which I unfortunately couldn't readily find anything out about, and for some reason there is a persistent transcription error or something which produces the famous actor "Boris Karlo", so my searching might be imperfect, but I couldn't find anything specifically about this place. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The University of California published a 110 page report in 1960 about the Karlo Site. Speaking of Native American cultures of 4,000 years ago, the National Park Service has said that the Karlo site "provides the best known link between Central Californian and western Great Basin cultures." Though never an actual town, in the early 20th century Karlo had a post office, a small railroad station and a water tank, according to Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California: The Northern Roads, a book published in 1962. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a Karlo Site article, be my guest, but that would be a different article on a different subject. As for the present artic;e, you seem to agree that it's not notable in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

Delete The archaeological site and the train stop are not the same place. The Karlo Site is probably so-named because it is found on the USGS Karlo quadrangle. The site is described to be in Section 7 of Township 31. That would place it about a mile of so from the train station. If the Karlo Site is notable, it should have its own article. I can't find anything that says Karlo the train station is notable. Glendoremus (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As explained by Cullen328, there's plenty of history here. The idea that we should delete this to start a separate page about the archaeological site is silly. You don't score points by deleting pages. Quite the contrary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown above the region has been covered enough to deserve its own article. All it needs is a rewrite with that coverage to make it an actual article. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this place doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for geographical places. It might be notable for the archaeological site, but it doesn't sound like there are any sources about it anyway and there were it might be worth created a separate article for it instead. Since this one is a about an "unincorporated community." Although, I'd be willing to change my vote if enough non-trivial sources about the archaeological site are found and especially if a clear connection is established between it and the unincorporated community. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming sourcing can be found, a Karlo site article would be a good idea, but that's not this article. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would not be prudent to turn an article about a non-notable formerly populated place into an article about an unconnected archaeological site in the vicinity, with neither the current title, content, or the incoming links being appropriate. Not that archaeological sites are necessarily individually notable either; the NPS book decribes numerous excavated complexes that may be better described with the relevant culture. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This minor location is not notable, and the potentially notable archaeological site is just a similarly named but unrelated topic. Needing to keep this page in order to create a potential page on the archaeological site is rather nonsensical, as there is absolutely nothing contained here that would be used in such an article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 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.