Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeaky Springs, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Squeaky Springs, California

[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)

The assertion that "it appeared on maps as late as 1981" is an interesting new twist on the GNIS methodology, but I find no evidence that it is true. In fact, going back through old topos, I find none that use this name; if they have anything labelled there, it is Winona, not Squeaky Springs. I profess a certain curiosity as to what Durham says, but at any rate, GHits produce tons of references to literal metal springs literally squeaking, and one reference to a "Squeaking Springs station" on old U.S. Route 99, but it says naught about it, as does every other such passing reference. The location itself is on the outskirts of the bizarre phantom suburbia which is Salton City, but there is literally nothing there except the traffic passing in either direction of a spot in the median strip. For the record, I don't see Winona being notable either, consisting on the maps at least of three buildings. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if possible redirect to Imperial County. –Cupper52^Discuss! 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on the "redirect to the county" solution in general, but in the case I am quite opposed, as I at least have not been able to get any idea of what sort of place this was. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched GEOREF, Google Scholar, and Geoscienceworld indexes / databases And found only one paper that mentions Squeaky Springs. It is in:

Norris, R.M., 1956. Crescentic Beach Cusps and Barkhan Dunes. American Assoictaion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 40(7), pp.1681-1686.:

This paper states:

The two groups of barkhans with which the cusps are compared are located in Imperial County, California, the first group about 4 miles south of Squeaky Springs Station on U. S. Highway 99, and the second group in the ...

Figure 2 shows that this Squeaky Springs is the same one as discussed in the article being discussed. There is nothing noteworthy noted in the above paper noted by the above paper. Paul H. (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Found one obscure reference to Squeaky Springs, California in:

Murphy, L.M. and Cloud, W.K., 1953. United States Earthquakes 1954. Serial 793 U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodectic Survey, Washington DC.

On page 18 and in reference to an earthquake of March 19, 1954, it states:

Westmorland (Squeaky Springs).-Trailer knocked off blocks. Knickknacks fell.

As with the previous mention, it is a banal mention that lacks any significance. Paul H. (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: GEOFEAT points to GNG for places without legal recognition and this does not have multiple IS RS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:36, 23 January 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.