Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fork, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think another final relist will bring us any closer to a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fork, California

[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 article on a thoroughly non-notable place in California. PROD was declined on the basis of the article having 3 references, but one is just GNIS (which doesn't establish notability), and the others are just the origin of the name and a confirmation that there was once a rural post office by this name (again, does not establish notability). As far as I can tell this is just a creek, not an "unincorporated community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything with fork (river) in the name is almost certainly a tributary, and likely would have had a post office. Welcome to the GNIS mess, where we've had hundreds of thousands of "unincorporated communities" dumped into Wikipedia over more than a decade, simply because of the lackadaisical and slipshod GNIS#Populated places. The USGS map shows that this is indeed a river. Figuring out what the "unincorporated community" rubbish is hiding is half of the battle.
Cottonwood Creek (Sacramento River tributary)#Course already has Cold Fork as a tributary. So the real question is not the use of the administrator deletion tool, but whether there's anything to say about this tributary or whether, like so many "unincorporated communities" before it that turned out to be river forks, it should redirect to the article on the main river. Wood 1912, p. 23 has Cold Fork under Cottonwood Creek on Wood 1912, p. 25. But Smith 1997, pp. 39–40 is actually a fairly good source with farms and houses and people, and pushes this most of the way towards being capable of having an article in my view.
Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Smith, Dottie (1997). Ritter, Eric W. (ed.). Historical Overview of the Western Tehama County Foothills. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Resource Area.
- Wood, Beatrice Dawson (1912). Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California. Geological Survey (U.S.). Water-supply paper. Vol. 295–297. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Comment - Without taking a position on whether this page should be kept or not, Hislop and Hughes is a self-published book, it was not published by the Tehama County Department of Education - that is not mentioned anywhere in the book. We shouldn't be using self-published local histories. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- At least you're not ridiculously saying that it's written by schoolchildren any more, but this try-everything scattershot attempt to discredit a history written by credentialled historians is addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Camino, California already. Uncle G (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW this book is endorsed by thr Tehama Co Historical Society, which hosts a PDF on their website at https://www.tehamacountyhistory.com/uploads/b/f66f4b40-4d01-11ea-b698-d75052f0ea16/7a6b6a20-d35a-11ec-a62b-e137e65301ed.pdf jengod (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - ”endorsed” - simply hosting a PDF is not an endorsement. This is still a self-published book, not one published by an established publisher with a record of fact-checking.
    - I never claimed it was written by school children, only that they did research for it which is obviously true since it says so in the acknowledgments. Making false claims about what another editor has said is a form of personal attack: please stop doing this. FOARP (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I don't wish to be unkind to the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history" — You most certainly did, and this bunkum treatment of acknowledgements as if they were authorship is addressed there in that discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        And where does this say that the kids wrote the book? Nowhere. It says that they contributed to it, which is evidently true.
        Please dial down the personal attacks. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This distraction fallacy about "personal attacks" is addressed elsewhere, and your saying that it's a "class project" by "kids" and "their teach" is right there. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anyway, if people aren't into Cold Fork, may I suggest a move to Hunters, California, which seemingly appears on more maps for longer and later. All the preceding stuff w Cold Fork and Pettijohn and the wagon routes can be subhedded "history" and then we can all move along. jengod (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other move option:
- minor archaic placenames of Tehama County, California
jengod (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Earth satellite image shows Cold Fork, the creek. There's a road, too. And a bridge. And a house.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And a bunch of history and geography in several history books, geological reports, and agricultural studies; as well as the odd news item: all in the article. Google Earth is not research. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Google Earth is not research. You are correct. It's a satellite photo. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I spot the foundations of 3 old buildings within 100m of these coordinates. Another foundation 2.6 km away.
  
  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The United States Geological Survey's 1890 map does not show any sort of community in this location. Ditto the 1902, 1916, 1949 maps. The 1959 shows a place called Cold Fork - it has 3 buildings. The 1967 map shows "Cold Fork" with 3 buildings. The 1977 map shows a place called "Cold Fork". I had bandwidth issues and was unable to fetch later maps.
  
  You can pull up 26 maps published from 1890 to 2022. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reason is WP:GEOLAND and WP:HEY बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing more about a possible page move or redirect which is mentioned in this discussion as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per WP:GEOLAND, WP:HEY, & WP:NOTTEMPORARY. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty clear at this point that this should not be deleted as WP:HEY (and probably worth mentioning WP:NOTTEMPORARY). The problem with moves and merges right now is that its really not clear what the best title for this article is. I don't think the current title is particularly bad, even if perhaps not ideal. We make a point not to name articles minor archaic placenames of Tehama County, California or The land area surrounding a place once known as Cold Fork, California. So this is fine for now, and naming can be followed up on outside of AfD. —siro χ o 05:08, 16 November 2023 (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.