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 keep and move to Walnut Islands. There appears to be a strong NGEO argument for the proposed title that has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona, Los Angeles County, California[edit]

Ramona, Los Angeles County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Declined PROD, the reason provided by 71.231.145.125 was: This is not a commonly known place. Just one person's fabrication. I double checked and it does seem like a fabrication, or at least a very local name in the same way my hometown has a neighborhood called L'Étang-des-Caps. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a fabrication. I didn't make it up. The community is acknowledged by multiple organizations, though by fifferent names. Look at these links.

  https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/ramona/index.html

  https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/esgvap/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ESGV_WalnutIslands_ComProfile_20190430.pdf Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know the names aren't the same but they both acknowledge the same piece of unincorporated land and have made statistics on the population of this land. I based this article on Mapping LA's report of this unincorporated community. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the part about these simply being local names, the names locals actually use for the area are simply the names of the surrounding cities. Nobody calls it Walnut Islands or Ramona, everyone calls it Covina or West Covina or Pomona in real life. The most technical term for the area would be Walnut Islands, even though no one uses it, since it's being used by a public organization. The next most technical term would be Ramona, at least if you allow LA Times to influence the naming of the article. But maybe I should have called the article Walnut Islands. After all, they've already renamed it to Walnut Islands on Google Maps. It's a real community, recognized by Google Maps, through and through. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As you say, no one calls it Walnut Islands or Ramona, which is why the names are not relevant. What is the history? Who coined the name other than you? 71.231.145.125 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The names aren't irrelevant just because no one calls them that. What about Vincent, California, or Citrus, California? No one calls them that, but these are the names used for the articles since those were the names used in the 2020 census. Also, I've said multiple times, I chose the term 'Ramona' for the article because of the Mapping LA article pertaining to the community.

  https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/ramona/index.html

  I don't know who exactly coined this term, but it was almost certainly coined before I was born, since the article in the URL in question only shows the 2000 census, and I was born after 2000.

  It doesn't matter if no local regular civilian uses the term 'Ramona' or 'Walnut Islands', these terms are used by relevant organizations, and the same goes for the communities of Vincent and Citrus. Do you suggest we delete those articles too? Walnut Islands is the most official name we have fot the community. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it hasn't been made clear, let me more thoroughly explain who else uses the term. Around 2008, the Los Angeles Times made a section of their site called Mapping LA, which shows all the communities in Los Angeles County. In San Gabriel Valley, they assigned the name 'Ramona' to the unincorporated areas in between Covina, Walnut, West Covina, and Pomona. Apparently they even somehow used the 2000 Census to calculate how many people lived in the area, which means the Census Bureau must've counted how many people were in this area back in the 2000s. And all this was done before I even knew what a city even was.

  Still think I made this up? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is misleading, the Census did not tabulate what the total population of "Ramona" was and you will not find this identified in Census data, rather the area is composed of census tracts and census blocks just like anywhere else and it's trivial to add these numbers up. TigerWeb shows the map of these. Reywas92^Talk 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The thing is, this isn't a community. It's not like so many of the articles we've discussed where something may in fact be a small neighborhood of nearby residents at a location known by a certain name (just not covered in sources), rather it is merely defined by the fact that it is not incorporated into the neighboring cities. This article discusses another area nearby called the Covina Islands that like this is very simply territory that hasn't been incorporated. While the standards for a census-designated place call for those to be cohesive places with a known name ("one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes"), this is not the case here – apparently no one who lives there would say that's where they're from and the media doesn't use these names either! It just so happens that one side of the area is neighborhoods – some of them noncontiguous – that haven't been annexed by Walnut, Covina, or West Covina and the other side of the hills is the Cal Poly Pomona campus that has not been incorporated by Pomona. Of course the regional planning authority needs to discuss every part of the region including unincorporated areas and give them a name like islands (there's also Glendora Islands next to Glendora and several other areas that are neither incorporated nor cohesive enough to be named a CDP). I'd be interested in seeing something older showing where "Ramona" came from (there's nothing on USGS topos), since it seems like it was made up out of thin air before another agency made up Walnut Islands. But when this is nothing more than a planning or statistical area, I'm quite hesitant to see notability or have an article on it and lean delete. If kept, it should really be more explit that this is a planning area simply defined by the lack of local government, not overstating what it really is. Reywas92^Talk 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is, there's A LOT of unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County with articles having the same trait of having a name not used by the public, and the existence of these areas not being acknowledged by the public. Vincent, California and Citrus, California for example, are never called Vincent or Citrus in real life, everyone I know just calls them Azusa or Covina, yet somehow those articles met the threshold for notability. You could say those names were provisionally pulled out of thin air for statistical purposes since no one calls those unincorporated areas Vincent or Citrus. If we turned back now and suddenly raised the bar on notability, there's a lot of articles we'd need to delete. A lot of unincorporated areas go unacknowledged and aren't called by their official names. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Vincent and Citrus have been recognized and tabulated as census-designated places since at least the 2000 census, so that's a fairly substantial difference. But yes, there are a number of CDPs that don't necessarily meet the standards of what they are intended to be (like some large subdivisions in New Jersey, for example), so they don't really have that much notability either. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but those names were "developed solely for planning and other purposes", by the US Census, not "one that is recognized and used in daily communication". Trust me, no one in that area will call those areas Vincent or Citrus, and very few people even know they're called that by the government in the first place, only government officials know them by that name. I used to live there myself, everyone calls it Covina or Azusa, and they don't know that it's called Vincent or Citrus by the government. Even on the news they prefer to call it (unincorporated) Covina or Azusa. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the closest thing we have to the areas being called by those names is people in the area saying "I'm on Citrus" or "I'm on Vincent". But obviously they're referring to Citrus or Vincent Avenue, not these unincorporated areas. Nobody really says, "I'm IN Citrus". Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides, how did the Mapping LA website get the US Census statistics for Ramona in 2000, as it says on the website? Don't you think it could have been recognized as an unincorporated community by the US Census at one point? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I replied above, the census tabulates and reports populations of census blocks, and it's trivial for anyone to add those up for any given area. The Census has never reported anything for "Ramona", just the blocks and tracts there. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. But it still seems that Los Angeles County still officially recognizes Walnut Islands as an unincorporated area, considering their Department of Regional Planning considered it notable enough to include in their area plan. And people do call the area Covina Hills, so the area has a limited sort of notability. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But I guess you're right about it not being a census-designated place since it didn't get it's own page on the US Census website. It's only recognized at the county level, and by no one above, nor no one below. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But even then, there's some other articles that have the same notability problems as Ramona, like the article for West San Dimas, as it's not on the US Census Bureau website either, even though some websites like BlockShopper call it a CDP, when that can't be verified, because some sites even call Walnut Islands a CDP. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  West San Dimas, California was also created by you and should also be considered for deletion.

  Also, Cal Poly Pomona is a major university that occupies a significant portion of what you're calling Ramona or Walnut Islands but they've never mentioned their location by those names. 71.231.145.125 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They've never called it by those names because unincorporated communities generally don't get acknowledged as much as incorporated cities. Nobody calls the area Walnut Islands, but it's still a real unincorporated area recognized by the county government, like Vincent or Citrus, even though these areas are pretty much universally referred to as Covina or Azusa, and neither Vincent or Citrus are acknowledged by locals at all. I agree with saying Cal Poly Pomona's in Pomona in the Cal Poly Pomona article to avoid confusion, since no one actually calls the area by the name the county government uses. But I don't see the need to delete Walnut Islands when Vincent and Citrus are unincorporated communities with similar notability issues yet their articles have been up for years. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not talking about Cal Poly Pomona's official naming convention. I'm talking about them ever uttering Walnut Islands or Ramona on their website or any other publication. EVER. 71.231.145.125 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know. But I'm not talking about Cal Poly Pomona anymore, I'm talking about the justification of an article for Walnut Islands based on it being officially recognized by the county, independent of any acknowledgement by Cal Poly Pomona (in this case the lack thereof). Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, look at Citrus. Dalton Park, the one county park in Citrus, doesn't even acknowledge Citrus, instead opting for "unincorporated Azusa".

  https://parks.lacounty.gov/dalton-park/

  As far as I know nobody beyond statistical or government websites really acknowledge Citrus. Should we delete the article for Citrus as well?

  As I said before the acknowledgement by organizations or people besides the government is irrelevant and the fact we have multiple articles for unincorporated areas not acknowledged by anyone but the government proves this. Unincorporated areas, by their very nature, are gonna be mainly acknowledged more by the government than anyone else, and unlike cities there's a chance they won't really be acknowledged by anyone at all, since people prefer to refer to these areas by the names of the surrounding cities. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Walnut Islands: Passes GNG, NGEO, Its legally recognized recognized populated place name.[1]. Its referred to in local government docs as "Walnut Islands", [2], [3]. Community orgs call it "Walnut Islands" [4]. Three refs is all I'm gonna list, but I'm sure a newspaper search would find refs to the name. I've only heard "Ramona" used for the area around Mt Sac and Cal Poly, but that matters not.  // Timothy :: talk  00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds excellent. It was my mistake to call the article Ramona but it's still a real unincorporated area nonetheless. Let's do it! Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move As per Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:01, 14 April 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.