Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Oak Park, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Oak Park, California[edit]

[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)

My first stop in Mendocino County turns out to have a somewhat interesting history: according to its website, it started out as an auto camp in 1928, but more recently has been turned into a facility to support AIDS patients. The topos are consistent with this, as they show the very typical rows of buildings of such a facility. All that said, book hits come up with essentially nothing useful, and I did not find enough references to this place as it now exists to claim notability for it. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can find out more about Lewis A. Spengler (who ran the park), albeit not enough for a biography, than I can about the actual park itself. There's one biography, by the U.S. Weather Bureau, and no others nor enough supporting material elsewhere. I always want multiple sources. The park itself? Well pretty much nothing substantial, only the mention in Spengler's biography. ☺ And I mistrust the park's own WWW site because it disagrees with the U.S. Weather Bureau on years. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 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.