Hawk Ravine, California: It is just a ravine, and since nothing of interest is documented to have ever happened there it also fails WP:GNG .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  No opinion as to notability, but I did find a decent article from The Folsom Telegraph dated 23 August 1890 that details a coal mining business established in Hawk Ravine in 1864 that was active still in the 1890s.  Presumably the employees of the mine were residing in Hawk Ravine.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide a link?   When I was doing my WP:BEFORE I found another Hawk Ravine in Nevada County.   That's not the one described in the article...would be nice to know which one the Folsom paper is referring to.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure.  I accessed through the wiki library: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/474798284/? terms=%22Hawk%20Ravine%22&match=1 Hope this helps.  4meter4 ( talk ) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!   I found the article and it's not clear which Hawk Ravine it's talking about.  But regardless, it's a passing mention; the article simply gives it as a location and is mostly about the effort to restart a mine.   We can't determine anything more without OR, so I stand by my claim that the location is not notable.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't call it a "passing mention" for WP:GEOLAND purposes given the length of the article.  It gave enough history about the mine and its prior activities to be more than just a passing mention.  If the mine is the reason the for settlement's existence than I would consider it WP:SIGCOV .   However, if there is more than one Hawk Ravine, California  I agree that it's not clear which "Hawk Ravine" is being referred to.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GEOLAND only gives a pass to legally-recognised populated places.  GNIS is not evidence of legal recognition under WP:GEOLAND , nor is this article.  A populated place cannot just inherit the notability of a mine within it.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 4meter4 , thank you for adding soruces.  Going forward could you please provide a link to the source, even if it's paywalled, so that others can find it more easily?  Thanks.  – dlthewave ☎ 00:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dlthewave I am accessing through the wiki library and that gives urls that are not accessible to the wider public and are not appropriate for inclusion on a wiki page.  I'm not sure how I could get a url link that isn't connected to the wiki library.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 01:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I didn't realized that had changed.  As a workaround, you can login through your free personal newspapers.com account after opening it from Wikipedia library and take a clipping of the article.  Then, go to the non-Wiki [www.newspapers.com] page, login, go to your Clippings and you'll find the clipping with a shareable link.  Not the most elegant solution but it works.  – dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It says "Under the Guidence of James I Felter of Sacremento" from that we can infer it is the one in california.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both are in California, one in Butte County and one in Nevada County, NE of Sacramento.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, when i read this I thought it was California State & Nevada State.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as it stands, delete The problem that is obvious to me is that there's nothing here that is inconsistent with Hawk Ravine being, well, a ravine, which is to say a larger area more or less identified with a physical feature.  GNIS is bad at this because the people drawing up the maps weren't all that good at it either, so going back after the fact and trying to puzzle out what the map makers meant is even less reliable.  This is exactly why passing references made to locate businesses or whatever aren't any good, and in the case of a mine, more often than not the mine isn't in the town if there is one because people don't want to live in the middle of an industrial site.  We know that there's some place called "Hawk Ravine", but we don't actually know what it is; we need sources that spell out what it is in enough detail to make it clear that the authors aren't just making the same kind of assumptions that are showing up here.  Mangoe ( talk ) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Mangoe.  Reliable sources describe a mine and geographic feature, not a populated place, neither of which meet our notability guidelines.  – dlthewave ☎ 00:59, 14 October 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.

Discussion outcome: delete