Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scovern Hot Springs

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scovern Hot Springs, 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)

Connoisseurs of these discussions will guess right off that this is a former resort, and yes, that is indeed the case. Or one could just as well call it a hots spring that once supported a resort. Both of the facts are easy enough to document if one goes beyond just strip-mining GNIS and Durham. As to the question as to whether it is notable for what it was/is in reality, I'm leaning in the direction of "no": information barely goes beyond the raw fact of its former existence, that the remains burned down in 1971, and that the springs are still there, on private property. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Appears to be a former resort. No indication of ever having been a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per outstanding improvements by User:Netherzone. This was a former settlement. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it may not be considered a well-known formerly inhabited place, it is indeed a notable hot spring. I have improved the article to reflect that, adding sections for history and water profile and three additional citations in reliable sources, bringing the total to five. I will continue to improve it. The article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Netherzone (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the possibility of notability, but in that case the article will need to be renamed to reflect that it is a geographic feature and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: If kept, I now think (due to improvements) it could run as either ~~I agree that if kept, it will need to be renamed~~ Scovern Hot Springs or ~~rather than~~ Scovern Hot Springs, California. It seems that at some point a redirect was created. If there is an admin or other qualified person to do that who may be watching this Afd wants to do a name change, that would be great. BTW, I found and added six newspaper references, including the Los Angeles Times. The hot springs were a popular spot for tourists in the 1930s and 40s, there was a dude ranch, hotel, bathhouses, and an annual rodeo was held there for years. It seems everything burned down in one of California's ubiquitous wildfires. I am just now discovering some of the archaeological history of the cite, and will also add (hopefully before the AfD is closed). A large cave with prehistoric artifacts was discovered nearby. Many hot springs were used by indigenous people for centuries before settlement by others; this may be the case here as well. Netherzone (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many hot springs in the United States had resorts either built on them or around them? Do we give an article to a hot spring because it exists? Do we give it an article because it had a resort built on it? What makes that hot spring more notable than any other? Where is the significant coverage? Where are the reliable sources? Before you quote an SNG, I get it, its probably notable according to an SNG and the article will probably be kept. That is the problem. Its only notable because of a criteria Wikipedia places in its guideline. Wikipedia makes it notable rather than the coverage. --ARoseWolf 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tsistunagiska, Please do a BEFORE search. If you would like to see the sources, see the article. It now has 14 reliable sources in books, newspapers, journals and websources including governmental sources such as NOAA. (And that is before adding any archaeological sources.) Regarding your statement that Wikipedia makes the Scovern Hot Springs notable rather than the coverage, that is quite incorrect, as the vast majority of the sources on both the hot springs and the former hot springs settlement are from many years before Wikipedia existed. I'm having difficulty understanding what is meant by "That is the problem." Netherzone (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you would assume I didn't do a BEFORE search is troubling too. I, in fact did do a BEFORE search as I always do. I also looked at all 14 sources included in the article and I found many to not be as reliable as some would say in these situations. A lot or routine and local coverage you would expect for a location at that time, similar to the tourism commercials you see on television these days. National Geographic does a lot of these. Their work on geographical locations around the world and in the US is quite extensive and could be seen as routine for them. It's what they have done. It's what they do. It's in their name. My questions were valid questions. According to USGS estimates there are more than 1600 thermal-spring localities in the US and more than half are situated in the three States of Idaho, California, and Nevada. Wyoming, including Yellowstone National Park, contains more than 100 hot-spring localities, alone. I've been to a lot of these, even those more secluded. We have hot springs all over Alaska. My question was a simple one. Of the more than 1600, why is this particular one more notable than those? What makes this one different? The argument a lot of times is that there must be something there. Ok, lets see it. My comment wasn't a vote. I am very much wanting to see what you come up with. So please stop questioning my judgement when its unwarranted as I haven't passed judgement. I made a comment. Thank you --ARose Wolf 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment using JSTOR, I found that according to indigenous oral histories that the sites of Isabella, Bodfish, and Scovern Hot Springs were the locations of prehistoric / historic Ttibatulabal villages according to page 635 of:

Park, W.Z., Siskin, E.E., Cooke, A.M., Mulloy, W.T., Opler, M.K. and Kelly, I.T., 1938. Tribal distribution in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist, 40(4), pp.622-638. Paul H. (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.: thank you for that citation, I will look it up and add it to the article. I've discovered there are four distinct names for the same hot springs at this location, so I'm also looking under those names. @Magnolia677: if you find a moment, please have a look at the improved article, it has been developed from a 3 sentence stub to a proper article now. Netherzone (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I found a write-up about Scovern Hot Springs on pp. 66-67 of Kern Canyon, Lake Isabella and Walker Basin, Kern County, California: Geology and Mining History: Field Guide by Gregg Wilkerson, California State University, California. There are a set of road-geologic maps that accompany this field guide. Paul H. (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H., thank you for three good finds. I'll add any relevant info to the article + the citation. I appreciate the time you have taken to discover these sources. It's good to know about Wilkerson's work. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY after Netherzone's improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 3 February 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.