- 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. Consensus is that this "place" does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Deor ( talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Blake Place, Arizona ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable place which fails both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst ( talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." And was part of a U.S. Geological Survey as per the GNIS source. Onel5969 TT me 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst ( talk) 04:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- What a weird coincidence that right after accusing someone of making bad-faith AFDs you immediately make a bunch of AFD for articles started by that person. ApLundell ( talk) 07:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure why/how/for what this location is named. It is in the Galiuro Mountains. Searching turns up one hit (after disregarding all the useless ones just based on it being in GNIS) related to mineralogy - apparently Cryptomelane can be found there ( Mineralogy of Arizona). Definitely not a populated place as meant by Geoland#1. Not nearly enough to meet GNG under Geoland#2. No place to redirect unless enough info can be found to justify adding a mention in Galiuro Mountains or somewhere else. MB 06:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Zero evidence of notability. Looking at the coordinates in GMaps shows how unfortunately lazy it is to mass-produce sub-stubs because it is obviously false to say it "is a populated place". Reywas92 Talk 09:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly does not pass WP:GNG. The only keep arguments presented above essentially boil down to WP:Aspersions and assumptions of bad faith on the part of the nom, which if true could be a behavioral issue to be litigated elsewhere but do not in and of themselves make this place notable. Michepman ( talk) 16:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
- The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
- Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
- It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
- The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
- The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 TT me 02:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:13, 16 December 2019 (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.
- 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. Consensus is that this "place" does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Deor ( talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Blake Place, Arizona ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable place which fails both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst ( talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with 4 other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." And was part of a U.S. Geological Survey as per the GNIS source. Onel5969 TT me 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst ( talk) 04:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- What a weird coincidence that right after accusing someone of making bad-faith AFDs you immediately make a bunch of AFD for articles started by that person. ApLundell ( talk) 07:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure why/how/for what this location is named. It is in the Galiuro Mountains. Searching turns up one hit (after disregarding all the useless ones just based on it being in GNIS) related to mineralogy - apparently Cryptomelane can be found there ( Mineralogy of Arizona). Definitely not a populated place as meant by Geoland#1. Not nearly enough to meet GNG under Geoland#2. No place to redirect unless enough info can be found to justify adding a mention in Galiuro Mountains or somewhere else. MB 06:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Zero evidence of notability. Looking at the coordinates in GMaps shows how unfortunately lazy it is to mass-produce sub-stubs because it is obviously false to say it "is a populated place". Reywas92 Talk 09:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly does not pass WP:GNG. The only keep arguments presented above essentially boil down to WP:Aspersions and assumptions of bad faith on the part of the nom, which if true could be a behavioral issue to be litigated elsewhere but do not in and of themselves make this place notable. Michepman ( talk) 16:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):
- The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.
- Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
- It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.
- The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.
- The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 TT me 02:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:13, 16 December 2019 (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.