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 is to delete this article. It seems there might be scope for article(s) on James Gillis (businessman) and/or Sarah Hayes Gillis, this can be considered elsewhere. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gillis, 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)

Non-notable location; ineligible for PROD because it was PRODded once before, and declined, because apparently this was the site of a train accident in 1916 that injured one person and resulted in a lawsuit: [1]. That source a) is a passing mention and b) specifically describes Gillis as a siding, and rail sidings are not notable (nor are they "unincorporated communities"). This is a clear failure of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. No other information found other than routine listings in rail tables: [2]. Nothing found in news. Satellite view shows an empty stretch of track in the middle of fields, with no human structures. And the bit about a fruitcake festival appears to be a snarky hoax, as a search for "Gillis" only turned up articles about people with that name, and "Gillis + fruitcake" turned up nothing at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this was anything but a non-notable railroad siding. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per user WeirdNAnnoyed, quick searches yielded on no results. killer bee  05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a biography of James Gillis (businessman), a soda water salesman and farmer, in the 1890 Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California and I have little doubt that this is simply a siding at the ranch that Gillis had "3 miles from Stockton" or one of the other land-holdings that he and his descendants had. The person is documented in a biography, and I have even found a second source in an Arcadia Publishing book. The ranch is not (hence the lack of clarity of exactly which land holding this is). Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Amusingly, Sarah Hayes Gillis is better documented and in more depth, I find after more searching, than her husband is, and he is a sub-topic of her, rather than the other way around as the 1890 History has it. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you proposing we make an article on these two people & mention this location in the article?? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod, disappointing that that was removed while the blatantly false "is an unincorporated community" remained. This vandalism from January is why we shouldn't mass-produce or keep junk that no one is paying attention to. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The railroad "siding" in question looks abandoned on satellite view and isn't connected to the main railroad line anymore. It was certainly a siding at some point, but that is no longer the case. The only thing other than fields around the siding is two structures (probably houses) about 400m north of the siding, although they are not part of whatever this "unincorporated community" is, they're just part of San Joaquin County in general. This "unincorporated community" is just a marker for a railroad siding. No population, structures, or anything else to see there. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 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.