Saco, California : This is also true for "Jewetta", which was another name this location was known by.   A previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saco, California ) closed as no consensus with only two comments.   The article has not been expanded since then.   There is really nothing to say about this place, other than that it's another of the low-effort articles based entirely on GNIS entries for "unincorporated communities" in California, all created by the same user in 2009.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well this turned up "Saco, a station on the Southern Pacific Railroad, two and 8 ⁄ 10 miles from Oil Junction" very quickly in the search engines, and then "Jewetta, a siding on the Southern Pacific Railroad above Bakersfield" not long afterwards.   So a post office and a railway siding.   Ironically, there's far more about Solomon Wright Jewett and his sons Solomon Jewett and Philo D. Jewett in Kern County history books (e.g. Morgan's 1914 History of Kern County ) than there is about the barely documented railway siding that was used for their sheep farm.   The GNIS importers are writing about the wrong subject, and clearly didn't even have the first clue what the subject was.   The Jewett's sheep farm north of Bakersfield is not the actual topic.   In theory, this is renameable and refactorable, and expandable as a biography of Solomon Jewett who with his brother turns up in the history books.  Uncle G ( talk ) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're exactly right when you say the GNIS importers "didn't even have the first clue what the subject was", otherwise they would have written about these early citizens and not about some utterly non-notable rail siding.   Can I interpret your answer as support for deletion?   If we want to write about Solomon Jewett someone certainly can; there is certainly more to say about him than the railroad stop on his land.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless we can connect the dots and find out why (as reported by Gudde) their Jewett railway siding started becoming "sack" in 1900 just before Solomon Jewett's death (q.v.), I'm not sure that this as a redirect is appropriate.   I definitely cannot find out more about the railway siding, and if this should redirect anywhere at all it should be to the rail line, which is now marked as a Southern Pacific one, although someone should perhaps find out which one.   If we cannot find out which railway line to point to, or don't have it, my view is let's wait until a railway editor comes up with a railway article with a list of freight sidings before having a redirect for "sack".  Uncle G ( talk ) 07:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete as per the first nom.  It's just a rail spot.  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete as per the first nom.  It is a non-notable railway waypoint that lacks any verifiable history of it being of any significance.  There is not any documentation that is was even an unincorporated community / populated place.  I can find no reason to keep this article simply on a vauge, unsubstantiated hope that somewhere / someplace there are undiscovered reliable sources proving that place is notable.  If something is found, the article can either aways be recreated or added as a section to the article about Solomon Jewett.  (By the way, I looked at the Kern County Property viewer and found nothing useful.  Paul H. ( talk ) 21:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Nothing useful in the current article.   An article about an overlapping subject at a different title wouldn't be improved by saving this history.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:24, 26 November 2023 (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: delete