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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Fork Summer Homes, 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 does not appear to be a formal community, thus it fails WP:GEOLAND. Rather, it appears to be a collection of lakefront second-home properties. Coverage is mostly trivial stuff like real estate listings and does not rise to WP:GNG, IMO. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's populated, it's legally recognized, and it's a place. I've found it on maps and listed in official government reports. But this is a yet another example of why the "populated, legally recognized, place" dogma is bad. It's populated and legally recognized, but there isn't a thing in the history books about it, and all that one can verifiably say (according to what I've been able to turn up) is actually about Lake Pillsbury and the area surrounding it that just happens to include this populated place in a list or suchlike. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, Geoland is bad, but listing in GNIS is not legal recognition in the first place. It's the Geographic NAMES information system, a database of names on maps. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about the GNIS? I found this listed by reports on the Mendocino National Forest, by the Mendocino sheriff, and some others. It's officially recognized as a place, and one can almost certainly pull government records for it. The problem with the dogma is that being legally recognized is not the same as being documented in depth. One can try to squirm around the idea of what legal recognition is, but that's actually bending the idea out of shape for one's own purposes, as the plot of grassland to the west of my house is legally recognized. It has government documentation that has force of law. What's legally recognized is in reality far more than what people assert to try to make that dogma work. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even "presumed notability" under WP:GEOLAND is "presumed" because it is presumed that legally recognised populated places "typically" should have enough sourcing out there to pass WP:GNG and if you don't have it yet that's just because we don't have it. Wiki only has "features of" a gazeteer, it is not a gazeteer per se and so does not have to list every place/geographical feature. We can still say "yes, but this case is obviously one where the typical presumption is wrong", even if you think it is a legally-recognised populated place.
However, this is clearly not a legally-recognised populated place as it is not incorporated. As such the presumption does not apply. Instead we apply WP:GNG directly, which it clearly doesn't pass. FOARP (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only references to this name that aren't either clickbait, WP mirrors, or place-name-drops are talking about a big wildfire in the region, and they all refer to it as something like "the Rick Fork Summer Homes area" or even "the summer homes around Rice Fork". And none of them say anything about this area, much less talk about it as a "community". It just seems to be a place where there are, for reasons unknown, a scattering of houses. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete We have to draw the line somewhere and given the lack of media coverage of this place and the fact that we're talking about a small number of houses that are sometimes inhabited (and sometimes uninhabited), this doesn't seem like it meets the criteria for inclusion. That said, given some of the squishiness I personally read in GEOLAND, my vote is a weak one. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2021 (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.