Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceres, Washington

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. This article has transformed significantly from the version nominated for deletion and there is a clear consensus to keep. I thank Shortiefourten for their work expanding it. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres, Washington

[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)

A belated prod undeletion: Ceres is a rail station with a general store, the post office was cabinet in the general store [1]. It's also a hill nearby. The area is known as Ceres Hill, so likely needs a move if not deleted.

Original reasoning:Not a notable location. All of the sources mentioned are either trivial mentions or are insufficient for notability (GNIS; Jim Forte). Only reference 6 approaches reliability, and it plainly states that Ceres was just a road-rail crossing with a general store, and the post office was a "pigeon cabinet" in the corner of the store. Satellite images reveal the store and railroad are both gone now, with a single farmhouse nearby. Non-notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. (proposed by WeirdNAnnoyed) James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the PRODder) for reasons given above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Non-notable community. TH1980 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite/reclassify as a former community. A long read is available at the Talk:Ceres, Washington page with details in early history of Ceres. I agree that such a community no longer exists, but it did from the late 1890s and with some strength into the late 1930s. Small, rural communities are rarely given due historical attention, but thanks to local reporting, even if in snippets, we can see the Ceres community that once existed. If via consensus we keep the article, I volunteer to rewrite and expand the page.Shortiefourten (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources compiled by Shortiefourten on the article talk page shows this is a recognized populated place sufficient to be kept. The Origin of Washington Geographic Names sources also calls it a "town", though I understand that to be in the American way that rural areas gathered community identities.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to rewrite this article as proposed by one editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Me, me, me! I do, I do, I do! I'm out of action this Memorial Day weekend but I can certainly start working on it by Tuesday, using the sourcing already found. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing detailed on the Talk page. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been expanded using sources from the Talk page and rewritten to declare it a former community (no sources since the 1950s refers to it as such) and now as a locale. Feel free to copyedit or use differing terminology to describe Ceres. Thanks to all who participated, and let's Keep this thing!Shortiefourten (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coat hangered would be a better description of what happened there. It doesn't exist and her revisions only further highlight that. James.folsom (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article now has basically been rewritten. Does that influence opinions? An editorial assessment of changes made would help with this closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The expansion and subsequent sourcing on this in the last week or so has improved this tremendously. A tremendous amount of sourcing backs up this article. Category:Ghost town articles by importance shows Wikipedia with over 2,000 such articles. It's OK to have ghost towns on Wikipedia, as long as they are adequately sourced. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if it were a ghost town, instead just a place where trains picked up cargo, water and coal. James.folsom (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are 41 references on this page. SpokaneWilly (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (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.