Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand Canyon, Los Angeles County, 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 keep, as revised. BD2412 T 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Canyon, Los Angeles County, 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)

Deprodded. No evidence of this being a "major feature" that meets GNG; most coverage of "Sand Canyon" is related to a different location East of Santa Clarita. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it is located east of Santa Clarita, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found the source of confusion. The article describes a Sand Valley in the San Gabriel Mountains, 7 miles East of Santa Clarita GNIS GMaps, but the coordinates point to a different Sand Valley 20 miles North of Santa Clarita GNIS GMaps. I didn't look closely at the location to the East in my WP:BEFORE search, but it's clearly the intended topic and we should change the coordinates to match it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was what Sand Fire (2016) was named after; presumably it swept through this canyon. Better explanation/illustration/mapping of its geography would be fine, but it helps the other article and is not the same kind of thing, so merger would not make sense. --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is coverage included with the fire reporting and seems to be a relatively large feature, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment This nomination was originally for a different Sand Canyon near the Antelope Valley. I changed the coordinates to match the Sand Canyon described in the article, which is associated with the fire, but I'm not entirely convinced that this one meets GNG either. The fire coverage is just a single event and only tangentially related to the canyon itself; it's possible for a notable event to occur in a non-notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The here-stated multiple instances of the name (are you really sure this is two places, not just one canyon 20 miles long?) means that having an article providing clarity/disambiguation/maybe _two_ articles is all the more important for readers. There are lots of mentions in media where a reader could likely arrive in Wikipedia wanting to know more:
- April 26, 1950: "Purina cougar chow — OK. This is the final cattle saga. On this date, a mountain lion tore off half the hide of one of Roy Crocker’s prize Herefords on his Sand Canyon ranch." The Signal, Santa Clarita Valley
- Los Angeles Times: "These are the latest coronavirus case numbers by community in L.A. County", recent article and many more, recent, similar ones
- "What's open and closed this weekend: beaches, parks and trails in southern California I cannot access. But are there trails there? Then there will be countless mentions cumulatively

Those are just first few of many many hits. This is a needed article or pair of articles or whatever; i am not going further. --Doncram (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a strong argument for keeping the Sand Canyon that's in the San Gabriel Mountains, but there just doesn't seem to be any coverage for the other one. A "not to be confused with" template should suffice. A quick glance at a topo map makes it clear that this is not one long canyon, and in case there was any doubt the GNIS entries also lists a distinct "source" and "mouth" for each one. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Hi do you want to close this rather than having it drag on, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doesn't bother anybody, interesting subject. I would keep it. TheImaCow (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2020 (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.