Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loybas Hill, California

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ GreenC 15:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loybas Hill, California

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Loybas Hill, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined. From what I could find this was never a populated place, just a riverboat stop in the 1800s. The site was recently mentioned as one of several places to be re-named, but otherwise there is nothing about this site that is at all notable: No population, no post office, nothing that satisfies

WP:GEOLAND. Just a hill where boats used to stop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not satisfy of GNG or GEOLAND. Any potential usable content could fit in the article on the relevant county. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it notable under the former name Squaw Hill which was changed based on the derogatory nature of the word
    Corning Observer Squaw Hill near Corning renamed Loybas Hill. Historically we can go back further by searching the old name. From 1920 - Bridge Plans Approved by Department, Squaw Hill News. In 1934 a woman wrote a letter to the editor stating that when she moved there in 1914 it was called "River View", so that may lead to more RS. Ping @Estar8806: to the previous delete ivoter. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Good catch on the former name. I'll strike my above !vote. Would say this article could use a bit of incubation, so I would prefer draftify over keep, but am not opposed to the latter. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the effort you put into finding those sources. All of those slipped past me. Regardless, I stand by my nomination: Just having an offensive name changed does not make a site notable, unless it sets a precedent or model for future name-changes such that it gets commented on in secondary RS. This case doesn't meet that bar; it was one of a cluster of sites renamed all at once, reported on all at once in an article that talks about inclusivity in place names but says almost nothing about any of the places. Beyond that, the bridge plans article is a passing mention, the letter to the editor is primary and probably not RS, and the "Squaw Hill News" column is little more than gossip that demonstrates the place existed but says nothing about it. If all we can say is that a place existed and had a church, and had its name changed...I don't see what service we're providing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
    list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as per the
    WP:BEFORE conducted by Lightburst. Chetsford (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - The coverage is on the weak side, but the Corning Observer coverage seems pretty substantial. The cvoerage really needs to be about the location, not just brief mentions, but the Corning Observer article at least seems to rise to that level. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: coverage is satisfactory. Additionally & worth pursuing:https://www.calif-tech.com/corning/history/squawhill.html, which gives lots of info that would be great leads, incl being site of first permanent ferry crossing. Djflem (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not seeing evidence that this is anything but a locale based on the name of the actual hill (so labelled on some topos). Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your rationale. Could say the same for Capitol Hill, which is also a locale based on the name of an actual hill so labeled on some topos. -- GreenC 01:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mangoe There is so much additional coverage (beyond what is cited above) that it will take some time to add it all in to the article, which has already expanded quite a bit. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • what? Djflem (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never mind. I would agree this is a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've often said, the Arcadia Publishing books are good pointers to look to first, as they are written by local historians and almost always give a broad outline of what the local history is, and this is the case here. Smith 2016 has the Moon School, the Squaw Hill landing, the Squaw Hill ferry, and William Moon's house; and would have immediately indicated that there's history here. The article now has these, of course. Such an overview source plus detail sources is — evidently! — enough for constructing an article. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smith, Josie (2016). Tehama County. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing.
      ISBN 9781439658666
      .
  • Keep clearly meets notability guidelines; TY to improvers jengod (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY. Although this AfD nomination was a misfire, nominator raised good questions and every single participant in this discussion added something. (Even Mangoe's earlier comment suddenly made sense to me when I stumbled on "the other Squaw Hill" in Riverside County.) Have tried to address all concerns in expanding the article, clarifying population, purpose of the riverboat landings, and background on phone company (though indeed it seems there is/was no post office). Added lots of sources including the Arcadia Publishing book and many others not listed above, and moved the Place Names pamphlet down to "Further reading" and replaced with another source. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Cielquiparle: Thanks. Is there a hook in there? If so I have a QPQ to donate. Lightburst (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst Too late. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lightburst and A.B. -- seems like a good example of sources being found and verified. jp×g🗯️ 09:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I neglected to mention: plus an absolutely rock-the-socks-off amazing expansion from @Cielquiparle:. jp×g🗯️ 09:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article went from [1] to what it is now. I'm glad someone could rescue it. Dream Focus 23:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage of the community itself that is presently included in the article's references appears to meet
    WP:NOPAGE perspective. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@WeirdNAnnoyed: Won't you please withdraw the nomination? Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Everyone has done a very good job of making this article an article, not the low-effort sub-stub it once was. Thanks, all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loybas_Hill,_California&oldid=1207601070"