Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araby, 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 no consensus. There is not enough discussion of individual locations to determine consensus on notability. Multiple users expressed opposition to a bundled nomination, so it is encouraged to discuss each page separately. (non-admin closure) buidhe 19:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Araby, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another run of rail sidings which GNIS claims to be populated places, this time in Yuma County, Arizona. checks with old topos confirm that they are all spots on the railroad with no surrounding settlement. It's particularly obvious when the placename comes from the company president or his cook. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also nominated are:

Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note These shouldn't have been grouped without a more thorough WP:BEFORE than simply looking at maps. For example, Blaisdell is described here as a populated place (a hamlet) with a post office, mill, store and a few houses. Araby is described in here as a small settlement.Pontificalibus 15:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Blaisdell. Blaisdell had a Post Office.  I'm not finding much for the rest, so they could be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Inappropriate WP:MULTIAFD as Blaisdell and Araby are definitely notable and this demonstrates an insufficient WP:BEFORE to bundle everything together. Kim, Asher, and Blaisdell also had their own post offices according to the articles so they're definitely notable too. As for the remaining articles (Colfred, Growler, Horn, Kinter, and Tyson), given the apparent lack of BEFORE, I'm not comfortable bundling them like this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't find evidence of them having post offices, and obviously that means I didn't look the right way. But be that as it may, I question whether a post office serves as ipso facto proof of a settlement. The linked search for Blaisdell identifies it as a "station", not a "settlement" as it does for another name on the other pages shown. I see from reading the first few pages of Barnes's work that he is scrupulous in classifying the names he lists. And I do not take the existence of a station as evidence of a settlement either; even in the east isolated stations are not terribly rare. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can reach a consensus about this, please comment in Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). I strongly agree that a place being a station does not mean that it is a settlement. My experience with Nevada places is that not all railway stations have Post Offices and stations that do have Post Offices are typically part of a settlement. Cxbrx (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe</b> 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep / Procedural Keep: I don't have time to research every one, but its already clear some should be kept, and there's no reason to rush these to deletion.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all nonew of these come close to meeting reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude what you are talking about? Araby clearly was/is a populated place, and that's the only one I barely started to look at.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * JPL is a notorious deletionist troll who votes !delete on just about every AfD and I'm guessing the closer of this discussion will weight his !vote accordingly. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, i didn't want to just come out and say that. John and I have history unrelated to what I hope would be a much more mundane topic of whether popuplated places are notable.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 20:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The continued unjustified insulting by Smartyllama should stop. Calling someone a troll is just wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've struck my personal attack above. My apologies for going too far there. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment If someone can explain why it is at all right that we have articles on these virtually non-existent places in Arizona but lack an article on Ikot Akpaden I will stop saying that Wikipedia has a horrendous and unworkable system of geographical coverage. Until them, I stand by my view there is no reason to keep this collection of sub-stub articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to create that article, you're more than welcome to. If we lack articles on notable places in certain parts of the world, I agree that's a bias problem, but the solution is to create those articles, not delete articles on other notable places. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep per Smartyllama. The nominator admitted that they didn't do enough research before nominating nine articles, of which at least a couple appear to be notable. John Pack Lambert's "other stuff should exist" argument is not relevant; as Smartyllama says, if John wants those articles to exist, he can create them. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.