Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Resort


 * 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 merge to Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus, at least, that there should not be a separate article on this subject. However, it clearly meets the standards of noteworthiness for mention in an appropriately related article, and fortunately a participant in this discussion has provided that target. If substantial additional material on the subject is found and added to this target article in the future, it may then be proposed for unmerging back to a separate article. BD2412 T 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Forest Lake Resort

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Finally doing a bit better on these Lake County places. Not too surprisingly, this was another fairly short-lived resort, started in "the 1930s" according to this page, which in turn seems to be citing. I've come across several YT videos made from home movies taken at the resort. What the topos show is a dense grid of buildings (presumably cabins) from the 1940s up into the 1960s, at which point they thin out, There's nothing there at all now; the resort seems to have closed sometime in the 1960s-'70s. At any rate, not a settlement, and not a notable resort. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete with prejudice. I had to remove about 150 of these kinds of places from the United Arab Emirates AfD by weary AfD a couple years back. Archaic gazetteer reference ≠ settlement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was expecting little, but the Arcadia book (of which you have found a book review) tells us a fair bit about this place, including who founded it and the fact that it used to be named Camp Calso. That name took me to , which seems to at least mention Jim McCauley and the Camp Calso Company.  Similarly, ISBN 9781555676285 came up in a search for Camp Calso and appears to have a "Forest Lake Resort" section heading in its history section.   More research needed, but I think that this might be expandable.  But definitely "was a resort" instead of "is an unincorporated community".  Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was. Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered in some depth in two books. But consider renaming to "Forest Lake Resort". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  07:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This quaint family history is all very nice, but it fails WP:GEOLAND. It's not a natural feature, it's not a populated place, it's not notable historically. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been a populated place. Notability does not fade away when the people leave. And the coverage by at least 2 books is enough for GNG. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND is the test, not WP:GNG. And where, please, in the guidelines do you find the words "Notability does not fade away when the people leave"??? As a settlement, unless it's an archaeological find of notability, notability most certainly does fade away when the people do. A settlement without people isn't, erm, a settlement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG trumps project-specific criteria such as WP:GEOLAND or WP:FOOTY. Ghost towns are notable if they have been discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. That is, if they have been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But it's not even a ghost town - as per Mangoe "not a settlement, and not a notable resort" - and lacking in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources - if you're going to cite a mention in the "History and prehistory of Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest, Lake County, California", you're really scraping at the barrel. At best, this former resort deserves a passing mention in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The former resort has multi-page coverage in Dillon and in Hoberg. That makes it notable. It was popular and would also have been discussed in contemporary magazines and tourist guides. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no way of validating the 'multi-page coverage' claim, because the books aren't searchable unless you have University access. It's perhaps worth noting that the 'Friends of Boggs Mountain' website devotes but a single line to this notable settlement: "McCauley established a resort near the head of Kelsey Creek renaming it Camp Calso. Jim McCauley died in 1941 and his heirs sold the timber rights to Setzer Forest Products." Here. As I say, at best - failing WP:GEOLAND - it deserves to be a footnote in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't assume bad faith. You can see some of the coverage in snippets: Dillon and Hoberg. With a bit of ingenuity with search terms you can see more. It is indeed multi-page coverage in both books. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain, but was one of a string of resorts along Kelsey Creek below the mountain. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. Both the book sources above are published by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection who manage the forest, and as such don't quite fulfill the requirement of "multiple, independent sources". Both sources mention the resort only in the context of the history of the current state forest, and there's no reason why we shouldn't do likewise. I don't see any in-depth coverage elsewhere, a newspaper search (including for its pre-1937 name Camp Calso) revealed only adverts and passing mentions. Pontificalibus 05:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The main source, Hoberg, was published by Arcadia Publishing, not the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and does not mention the state forest. The resort was not on Boggs Mountain and was never part of the state forest. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am amazed discussion is ongoing, when this is such a clear-cut issue. This is not a settlement today. It never HAS been a settlement. It was, briefly, a failed resort. It does not pass WP:GEOLAND. It is not notable for any reason whatsoever. It has, arguably, never been notable in history. It is briefly mentioned in two ( unverifiable ) books, so yay for that. But that doesn't make it notable. And it doesn't make it a THING in today's context. It is not historical, archaeological or even anthropological. It's.not.a.thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The books are verifiable. You just have to click on the links: Dillon and Hoberg. All that WP:GNG requires is that the topic has been covered in some depth by reliable independent sources. That is certainly true. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which just verifies that the place does NOT pass WP:GNG. Passing mentions in two books that are themselves quaint marginalia. And it STILL fails WP:GEOLAND! To reiterate: at best, this long-defunct (and only briefly funct) resort deserves a passing mention in the Boggs Mountain article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The resort was not on Boggs Mountain. Two pages of text in Dillon and five pages of text and photographs in Hoberg are much more than passing mentions. The power of WP-GNG is that it does not require that a topic be "important", whatever that means, just that it has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I love the use of the author's surnames to make 'em sound more authoritative - Dillon and Hoberg. Wow. 'Resorts of Lake County' doesn't sound quite as impressive does it? Some pictures in a picture book and some passing mentions in a regional guide DO NOT make the empty location of a long defunct (and only briefly viable) resort notable. There's nothing there, hasn't been for 60-odd years. What isn't getting across here? This.is.not.a.place. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Brian D. Dillon is an archaeologist and author of several books, and Donna Hoberg is a local historian. They are both reliable and independent sources, and both discuss the topic in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Without prejudice to this discussion, I have moved the article to Forest Lake Resort, which seems a more appropriate title, since the article is not really about today's hamlet, known mostly for Our Lady of the Pines Catholic Church. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a clear-cut issue, but Alexandermcnabb has it wrong. It doesn't matter how "important" it is.  Fame and importance is a long-rejected idea.  It doesn't matter whether it's "merely a resort" any more than it matters that other articles are "merely beetles".  This was just more two-sentence "unincorporated community" GNIS rubbish.  Now it is an article on something with an already documented history.  It doesn't matter that that history ended and the place is no more.  Indeed, that is why people often come to encyclopaedias to look stuff up.  The claim that this is like  is laughable, because this no longer being a two-sentence GNIS dump makes it exactly not like that article.  And dismissing the sources because one hasn't read them and judging based upon a WWW site is entirely wrongheaded, and clearly Alexandermcnabb's evaluations of the sources, given that xe outright says that xe hasn't read them, is unreliable.  Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexandermcnabb has read both sources and still believes they don't stand up WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. This is a marginal resort of zero importance, no longevity and no current geographical standing. It also fails WP:PLACEOUTCOMES as a resort (hotel). It's no.longer.there. As a minor blip in the history of Boggs Mountain, it possibly deserves a sub-heading on that page, but no more. It won't surprise you to know that Alexandermcnabb doesn't think he has it wrong. This is a place of no lasting notability, historical significance or merit. It's a small resort that opened briefly and then closed. The Magna Carta wasn't signed there, the Rolling Stones never played there, a famous actress never died there. It is, in short, a Norwegian Blue. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not consider "importance", a vague and subjective concept, but simply requires that reliable independent sources have discussed the topic in some depth. Not entirely by coincidence, that means there must be enough material to develop a non-trivial article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.