Deletion of Bombshell Geyser

Comment: Assessing using criterion #4 of , I think this just ''barely'' squeaks by; mainly with regard to the first source. A check of Google and newspapers.com didn't reveal any new sources other than those already listed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: The https://www.gosa.org/transactions/GOSA_Transactions10.pdf first reference has only a passing references to Bombshell Geyser, along with a picture.  This reference does not fulfill any sort of notability requirement for this article.  Searching GBooks for "Bombshell Geyser" (with the double quotes) had 8 hits, none of which were in depth, some of which seemed to be false hits.  Searching GScholar found nothing.  Searching newspapers.com found passing mention in two articles, neither of which is sufficient for notable coverage.  JStor found https://www.jstor.org/stable/4519857 one passing mention.  Just because there are a bunch of other geyser pages listed at List of Yellowstone geothermal features does not mean that they are all notable.  For this geyser to be notable, I'd like to see one or two  articles or scholarly articles about this geyser and how unique and notable it is.  I'm just not seeing the coverage.  If this AfD was for a purported town, it would definitely be a delete on the basis of a lack of notability.  Compare this to Fly Geyser, which is quite notable.  The elements of List of Yellowstone geothermal features should be reviewed for notability.  If no one who !voted Redirect will change their !vote to Delete, then I will go with redirect to List of Yellowstone geothermal features so as to not block consensus and move forward with cleaning this up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)