Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley Lake Ranchos, California

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 05:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Lake Ranchos, California

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. This location is a subdivision, not a community. The user who contested the PROD added a couple of references, which is appreciated, but these are just routine mentions of legal matters. The consensus on subdivisions and other informal settlements is that they are subject to

WP:GNG, and that bar is not met in this case because the sources cited are routine and not in-depth, and GNIS (which was originally the only cited source) does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
Talk to my owner:Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to AfD – definitely worth further discussion rather than simply PROD. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undeveloped land with a history of failed development plans does not meet guidelines, I can't see anything that indicates this is more than just that. NGEO points to GNG and this fails. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This locale lacks any significant notability whatsoever. TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 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.