Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Oidak, Arizona


 * 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 procedural close. This discussion was one of a large number of disruptive, retaliatory nominations of articles from (see WP:ANI), made in such quick succession that they cannot have individually determined that there is a reason for deletion. If there are other editors in good standing that think this article should be deleted, please feel free to open a new discussion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ali Oidak, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article does not meet WP:NGF. Subject lakcs WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Not an encyclopedic topic. ~  Pog ing  Juan  05:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a spate of retaliatory edits by this editor after they disagreed with an edit I made on one of the articles they created. Onel 5969  TT me 09:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND, listed as a village in the Papago Reservation on a publication published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Source added to article. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Properly sourced articles about depopulated indigenous settlements in North America serve an important encyclopedic purpose in documenting the land's earlier inhabitants and preventing the erasure of their history. This article was badly sourced before the nomination, but is better now after the source added by RecycledPixels and another by me. Its nomination appears to be part of a bad-faith spate of nominations in retaliation for other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2022 (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.