Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McLeans Ferry, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McLeans Ferry, California

[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)

Topographic maps have the site marked as a generic ferry, and there's no GNIS entry. As a ferry, it fails WP:GEOLAND and would have to survive based on multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can only find one. Several passing mentions in Google Books hits as a landmark, but "We crossed the river at McLean's Ferry" falls short of WP:SIGCOV. As it stands, we've got one example of significant coverage in an RS. If more significant coverage, not just namedrops, can be found, I'll withdraw this, but as it is, it fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No post office. Confirmed that there is no GNIS entry. Searching Newspapers.com for "McCleans Ferry" yields a description in an RS, a trival mention, another trivial mention. GBooks has 10 or so trivial mentions. There is no legal recognition for this locale, so #1 WP:GEOLAND does not apply. There is only limited trivial coverage, so #2 of WP:GEOLAND probably does not apply. I'm a bit on the fence about the coverage, there are a number of trivial mentions including a description in an RS. Maybe someone else will have a stronger viewpoint? Please don't let my Weak Delete block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above; I'd like to see some more coverage come, but I'm worried it doesn't exist. If it's borderline, I'm okay with a keep close, as opposed to a relist. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:42, 22 October 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.