- 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. ✗plicit 00:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Etheda Springs, California
[edit]- Etheda Springs, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As noted at User:Hog Farm/springs, this is part of a cleanup effort of California geostubs with "Springs" in their names. Etheda Springs appears to have been a resort active in the 1930s and 1940s, although I found a single passing mention in a 1928 newspaper result about "Etheda Springs subdivision" at Reedley. However, everything else calls this a resort.
The coverage is trivial, mainly consisting of a few real estate listings and a larger number of old announcements from when newspapers use to print local goings-on announcements like "Mr. and Mrs. so-and-so just return from four days at the Etheda Springs resort". As a resort site, this doesn't get the WP:GEOLAND free pass, and I don't think the coverage rises to WP:GNG, as nothing I saw is really in-depth. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No post office. I also checked newspapers.com and found only trivial coverage. JSTOR had nothing for "Etheda Springs". GBooks had a hit found in Gudde, but actually searching Gudde found nothing? The other GBooks hits seemed to be name place lists. As this locale is not legally recognized, and it has only trivial coverage, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom's very detailed analysis, and insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2021 (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.