Deletion of Aberdeen, California

Comment: Fails . Having once had a PO doesn't automatically make a place a notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: Fails . Not a legally recognised community, fails GNG. Simply having had a post office does not confer notability. Ask yourself whether there is really any article to be written about this locality? If the answer is no (and it is) then why do we have one? Additionally this was part of a campaign of article creation where a single editor created thousands of stubs based on bad sourcing and should be got rid of simply on  principles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:TNT)

Comment: per  if we want to say there's a settlement here we need a reliable source which says so. The burden of proof for this lies with those who want to retain the content. Here all we have is the GNIS listing, and GNIS hasn't shown itself to be very reliable for this. We can't infer the existence of a settlement from mentions in newspapers or the fact it has a post office, that would be |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: It had a http://pbbooks.com/caindex.htm post office, so I feel it meets #1 of . I acknowledge that most editors disagree with me on this and would not want to block consensus here.  Newspapers.com has many trivial mentions of "Aberdeen Inyo".  GBooks has items about the railroad and post office.  GBooks has https://www.google.com/books/edition/Signposts_and_Settlers/3HMvAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=aberdeen+inyo&dq=aberdeen+inyo&printsec=frontcover snippet that would be nice to see the full text
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)