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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plumas, Lassen County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another pain to deal with, partly because the GNIS coords are way off, but mostly because Plumas County creates mountains of false hits even if you try to stick to Lassen County. But Gudde identifies this as a WP station, and that's what I see in the topos: a station with no surrounding settlement except a nearby farm. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Former railroad stop, no evidence it's a notable community. "Has a small population" is unsourced OR. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Keep or else merge with the township that it is incorporate in as a township article. Wikipedia ought to include all known place names, so that people can find them doing a search. I've heard of Plumas. The argument that it is a 'pain' holds no water because lots of articles are a 'pain' to write or research. The fact it has a small population makes me think it is the type to merge into the parent township. Goldenrowley (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO TOWNSHIP. California doesn't have townships as a political structure and there is no source I can find that shows that there was a town here. Wikipedia ought not to be multiplying GNIS's interpretational issues by writing articles on towns and villages that did not exist. And that's what this article appears to be: it's an article on named spot on the railroad, and no, I don't agree that every railroad station is notable either. My expressions about the difficulty in searching are an invitation for you to do better, which from your testimony here you have not done at all.

Wikipedia should not include all known placenames. Even the WP:GNG-denying version of WP:GEOLAND we have now doesn't assert that. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that supports the "small population" claim? –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's been two weeks and no sources have been presented that describe a population, an unincorporated community or anything other than a non-notable former train station at this location. Appears to be another WP:GNIS error compounded by a failure to fact-check before creating an article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fact it's been two weeks without any form of improvement and no sources other than the GNIS survey found makes it pretty hopeless to confirm with a true source it actually has a population. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 09:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, just another stop on the railroad. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it might have been more then a stop on the railroad, but unfortunately there's no sources to back up that it was. Personally, all I could find is stuff on Plumas county. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 21 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.