Farad, California: The subject fails WP:GEOLAND , GNIS does not establish notability; the references are trivial mentions or broken links.  This appears to have just been a railway point beside the hydroelectric station; WP:BEFORE does not uncover information we can use to write an article.  Also, it does not appear on a map.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No evidence that this was ever existed as a community, much less that it was notable.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Advanced search for: " Truckee River General Electric " In books/documents Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat In the news Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives In academic/legal journals and reference works Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive World Wide Web pages Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo Images (free) Google · Flickr The article is wrong anyway.   The power plant was built by the Truckee River General Electric company in 1899, 10 years before the Sierra Pacific Power Company was invented.   It seems very silly that Wikipedia has an article claiming that a hydroelectric power plant and gaging station is a "former settlement".   It is even siller when even a cursory search reveals that the clearly notable subject is the redlinked one.  Uncle G ( talk ) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Not only all the above, but the topos reveal that the location given is that of the gauging station, except on the wrong side of the river.  I can get neither Durham nor Gudde to show up in a search, so I can't see what the placename books might have said about this spot, but the closest I come to it as a place is that all the listings of water/powerplants assume that it's named after a place called "Farad" instead of being that place.  Mangoe ( talk ) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete No mention of the place in the local papers at all.  A notable place would be have mentions in it's local paper.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Delete or Move to Truckee River General Electric and let it fend for itself.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the above editors' findings -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per the discussion at User talk:Liz#Recent PROD of Farad,_California where I (as an IP) encouraged the user to go to RFU.  Fails NGEOLAND, but appears likely to meet GNG.  Mach61 ( talk ) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] failing geoland and meeting gng is factually not possible.  Are you sure you didn't mix those up?  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] D'oh, I meant "it doesn't get special treatment cos it isn't legally recognized but is still notable due to coverage".  Anyhow, amend vote to strong keep , the plant has lots of sigcov even in the 21st century [66] [67] [68] .  Mach61 ( talk ) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody is currently trying to deny the notability of the power plant, or at least that is not the goal right now.  People want to delete this article because it is titled "Farad, California" as though it was a populated place and it isn't and never was.  GNIS just turned it to one when it miss classified the power plant.  We could move it to "Farad power plant" and that would be fine provided the claims about it's notability is true.  But, it would be just as easy to write that article and delete this one.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ?? ?  How is deletion a better option than simply moving the article.  Mach61 ( talk ) 00:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has less than 50 edits, and only one sentence about the power plant.  That one sentence has already been stated to contain factually incorrect information.  I'm just saying either/or is just as easy.  James.folsom ( talk ) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The place has its own well-maintained and well-marked exit on Interstate 80.   It hosted a group of men in the late 1800s that build and maintained the power plant and the flume/pond/penstock infrastructure that fed it.   I'm still trying to find authoritative documentation for this last point.   One of its official purposes is as an access point for kayaking on the Truckee river and the Tahoe-Pyramid hiking/biking trail.   More info about this is here: https://tahoepyramidtrail.org/ Here's a clear Google Maps street-view image of the exit and its identifying sign, stating simply, "FARAD [ exit 201 ]": https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4204508,-120.0331203,3a,75y,348.89h,87.66t/data=! 3m6! 1e1! 3m4! 1snsJK_c2Pam6CGYNG9QbRxg! 2e0! 7i16384! 8i8192? entry=ttu I believe the well-maintained presence of the exit itself and its marker sign identifying the exit as "Farad" indicates its significance/importance.  I haven't had much time to do in-depth research to find authoritative articles and update the page.   I'm a single dad with ADHD and full-time job, trying to juggle my time between a lot of things, but i really do want to try to revive this article and make it useful.   I hope these can be taken into consideration when reviewing the utility of the page or the significance of the place it attempts to document, and discussing whether it should stay or go.   I also maintain the Farad FB page: https://www.facebook.com/farad.california Erik Schorr ( talk ) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes we know... but none of your comments are constructively dealing with the problems of the title or the content errors.  It needs to be titled so that is more clear what it is.  From your description, It's a former work camp and current recreational area.  It's notability as such can be revisited, once the article actually reflects what it is.  BTW, if you don't have time to improve the article you can find somebody to do so, if you don't have time for that then you don't have time to care whether it's deleted or not.  And Honestly, if you hadn't wasted so much of my time being difficult about this, I might would been willing to move it an work on it some.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ASD and lack experience and guidance when it comes to wiki discussion etiquette, so I apologize if I came across as difficult.   Just hoped to get as much into the message as I could before I forgot.  Erik Schorr ( talk ) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ASD here too, so I understand.  James.folsom ( talk ) 04:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I wouldn't worry too much about a possible deletion.  I could make a short article called Farad powerhouse , and since it would be different than the current article on Farad , it'd stay up.  Mach61 ( talk ) 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Had I not been clear, that this was best?  James.folsom ( talk ) 04:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or one could write about the notable redlinked subject, since it had more than one powerhouse, and is also what the entire Truckee River General Electric system was named after.  Fowler 1923 , pp. 834–853 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFowler1923 ( help ) , which gives a potted corporate history and the locations and details of the five power plants in the system, is where to start, people.   Not Facebook pages, nor Google StreetView.   Nor with a lopsided approach that only discusses one powerhouse wholly out of context.   Civil engineer Frederick Hall Fowler of the U.S. Forest Service did the heavy lifting on this a century ago .   You just need to stop looking at Facebook and WWW searches and street signs, and read proper histories written by experts.  Uncle G ( talk ) 06:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Uncle G, level headed as always.  Good example of how It's always better when we collaborate.  James.folsom ( talk ) 18:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent find, sir.  Could I ask what sort of thing I would call the area/place next to California Interstate 80, denoted by its own exit named "Farad" (named as such in CalTrans/CADOT's official guide of exits along I-80, [69] https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/exit/f0017912-80.pdf#page=8 ), with a named road (Mystic Rd) to a maintained parking area, has a hydroelectric power station bearing the Farad name, an access point to Tahoe-Pyramid bikeway, an access point for kayaking and fishing on the Truckee river, and a public spring-fed soaking pool?   It's not a park nor rest stop nor a census-designated place,  but it's significant in its own right.  If it were _only_ an exit meant for access to the power station and nothing else, I wouldn't be here.   The name given to this area just seems to be "Farad", and this is how people refer to it.   It would seem appropriate to use this name for the article that describes the place that people who visit it are familiar with.   It's this name and this description of the place that I wish to document, and not simply a hydroelectric powerhouse.  Erik Schorr ( talk ) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see your point that you don't like the proposed article name.  So we need to decide what to call it.  The sign is not a permanent feature, and could change so it's not a good guide.  So just to understand the perspective of the place I visited it on google streetview.  This is a trailhead, not all that uncommon for the signage to be the way it is either.  Could we get any consensus for merging with Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail ?  This what the place is now, and both articles need work.  James.folsom ( talk ) 19:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] references Fowler, Frederick Hall (1923).  "Nevada market".  Hydroelectric power systems of California and their extensions into Oregon and Nevada .  Water-supply Papers.  Vol.  483.  Washington D.C.: United States Geological Survey .  doi : 10.3133/wsp493 .  Move to Farad Hydroelectric Plant or similar, which appears pretty crystal clear notable from book and internet searches.  Problem is we are trying to identify the notability of a settlement, which is incorrect.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Guys try to remember the closing admins won't choose a move destination , they will likely just delete.  If we want it to move, we all need to be very specific about where, I'm going with uncle g, and will amend my vote. .  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be shocked if the first bit were true.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just saying what I was told.  James.folsom ( talk ) 21:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more thorough discussion on deletion vs move, and potential new titles.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whatever Uncle G and Erik think is good ; retitle, move, or expand, or basically anything that preserves the existing information and doesn't delete it.  jp × g 🗯️ 05:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Didn't you read the discussion?  It was pointed out most of the info wasn't even correct.  Redirect to Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail I've scratched out my vote above.  This is my new vote.  This place made it into Wikipedia because of a GNIS error.  Closer inspection reveals it is simply a freeway exit that was named Farad due to the power plant being there.  The purpose of the exit is to provide access to the trail head for the Tahoe-pyramid trail.  This preserves the link so that maybe Erikschorr can accept it.  This leaves anyone who wants to, able to create the article on the power plants.  That subject has little to do with this trailhead anyway.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail or Delete I actually think it should be deleted.  These redirect suggestions are complicated because this is just a GNIS error.  THere probably should be articles on the other topics discussed here.  But deleting this in no way interferes with any that.  One could also redirect it to a list of exits on that highway.  But I see no need to do anything other than delete.  But those are my redirect preferences if that is the outcome.  James.folsom ( talk ) 17:41, 27 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete