Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lerona, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lerona, California

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Lerona, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A few buildings then, and a few buildings now, and nothing that looks like a town. But searching finds, maybe, a reference to a library, and the topos don't go back past the 1950s, so I'm not sure about this one. But indications so far are that this wasn't a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Keep was a station on the San Joaquin and Eastern Railroad and had a school: [1].--Pontificalibus 13:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG and GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." No objection to a redirect per GEOLAND, but there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for an article.  // Timothy :: talk  14:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across a school district named after and serving a geographically discrete isolated settlement where that settlement isn't recognized in law. This certainly isn't a subdivision, business park, housing development, informal region of a state, unofficial neighborhood or anything analogous to those examples. It therefore passes GEOLAND as a legally recognized settlement.----Pontificalibus 14:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some places that look like nothing today turn out to have significant history. I've worked on articles for such places in California. Sadly, all that I can find in this case is that Miss Myrtle Tomkinson ran the free library here in 1918. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep This was a very small populated place on the SJ&E Railroad. It clearly had a very small population - only eight students in the school in the 1930s, but all with a perfect attendance record, according to one newspaper clipping. The clear evidence of the small school district is really what pushes this over the WP:GEOLAND line. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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.