Ayersville, Georgia: It appears to be a rail point which it was hoped would develop into a town, but apparently that failed to happen.  I am becoming suspicious of claims of populations which aren't backed up by the census, and this one isn't: there's no mention of the place in the 1900 summary for Georgia in Habersham County, which is where this spot was located at the time.  The histoy book would be something except that it's the source of the population claim, which casts doubt on its reliability.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : As much as I hate geographic stubs like this, I suspect reference 4 is just enough to pass notability.   Its population claim is dubious, but it does seem somewhat authoritative and researched (I wouldn't take the number seriously, but I think we can conclude there were a few dozen people living there in 1900).   Satellite view shows there are still several homes and a cemetery in the area, so this wasn't simply a siding or signal point that someone at GNIS decided was a "populated place".   But that's about it, not a whole lot of information.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Discussed in the Guide and Biographical Sketch of North-eastern Georgia and the Carolinas: Pen Pictures of Beautiful Scenery, Watering Places, and Points of Interest on the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway, 1878, as a distinct town with 50 people.  Also lots of hits from people who lived there, including WWI draft cards listing a resident, and people buried in the cemetery there.  Clearly much more than just a railroad point.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Stephens County article.  This place is very old and nothing of any import is written about it.  There is only 2 sources and 1 or two websites, that I can find, (including the ones already on the article) that directly address the subject of Ayersville.  WP:GEOLAND doesn't confer automatic page status to all populated places, it confers presumptive notability.  WP:N says that presumptive notability is not a guarantee, and provides WP:GNG as the criteria that must be met to be a stand alone page.  Ayersville Georgia simply doesn't have any sources that could be used to write an encyclopedic article.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That last sentence is clearly incorrect, there's quite a bit of historic sourcing that can be found in a web search.  SportingFlyer T · C 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and they are not written about ayresville, they only mention ayresvilles in relation to the main topic, train wrecks and the like.  This makes them non significant coverage of ayresville.  This type of coverage doesn't establish notability.  They also typically only provide largly unencyclopedic information about ayersville.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't matter - Ayersville is or was a populated place, all we need per WP:GEOLAND is that it is verified .  SportingFlyer T · C 09:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – I agree with some of the statements presented in the keep votes above, and there are also established hiking trails, citing in G books.  I think WP:GEOLAND is met.  TLA tlak 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets GEOLAND per above.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GEOLAND per above.  ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:36, 14 March 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.

Discussion outcome: keep