Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orwood, 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orwood, 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 rail facility mistakenly identified as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe RR. There was a post office located there but, as we've seen, it's not a good indication of community. Location is still completely agricultural. Not a community and not notable in any other respect. Glendoremus (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; I find the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep Orwood had a post office, [1]. Here are articles about residents: Dateline Orwood (It does also mention the Orwood Tract, but if it was just about the tract, then wouldn't the dateline be "Orwood Tract"?) Man drowns near Orwood. Advertisement listing four people from Orwood who purchased Oldsmobiles. "Island residents in the vicinity of Orwood ... station," who probably got their mail there. "will spend Monday night at Orwood." "Historically, the area included communities now remembered only by road signs, including Point of Timber, Borden Junction, Bixler, Orwood and Marsh Landing." (by Carol A. Jensen, East Contra Costa Historical Society, Marsh Landing is probably Marshs Landing, California, aka Antioch). Looking at newspapers.com, it seems like there was also a resort called Orwood's, which appears to be in roughly the same place. There is Orwood Resort, located to the west of the GNIS location. I agree that Orwood was very small but it had a post office and it had residents. Cxbrx (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that having a post office means that a place is "legally recognized", which is a difference of opinion than most other editors. In this AfD, I did get Editorofthewiki to agree with me, but I believe that I have not gotten many (any?) other editors to agree with me, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography. I'm changing this to a Weak Keep so as to not block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest to merge this with related page instead of outright deletion MissiYasında&& (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what related page? Glendoremus (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, I don't see any evidence that this place was legally recognised, and there's clearly nobody living there now. I don't agree that having a post office constitutes legal recognition. If it's not legally recognised then it has to pass the GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Sources which mention that people living there bought cars, somebody stayed there overnight once, etc are not usable as sources as they couldn't be cited in the article. Attempts to infer other things from the terminology used in headlines or the naming of nearby resorts constitute original research. Hut 8.5 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view, having a post office is an indication of legal recognition. The fact that there were residents establishes this as a community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's not. Back before RFD, post offices had to exist for people to pick up their mail within a reasonable distance, and thus they were put in all sorts of places, including houses. It didn't mean there was a town by that name. Mangoe (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that. But the presence of articles about people from Orwood helps establish this was a community in some sense, if a largely agricultural one. So I'm not proposing that the presence of a PO is a guarantee of notability, but an indication. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" Typically does not mean always, presumed is not a guarantee. The simple presence of a Post Office (past or present) at a rail junction does not meet WP:N: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" What about this is worthy of notice? // Timothy :: talk 17:57, 19 August 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.