Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artesa, 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) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Artesa, 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  05:19, 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 09:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Google and topo show just a few buildings. Without finding any coverage of this place in GBooks or newspapers, I don't think it's notable to pass GEOLAND. Reywas92Talk 17:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Indian village established about 1907 on the Papago Indian Reservation, trying to use Google Maps to see what it looks like today and using that as a reason to delete isn't that helpful.  Additional references added. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:44, 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. Its nomination appears to be part of a bad-faith spate of nominations in retaliation for other edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * keep Is now decently documented, but it is annoying that it takes threat of eletion to get people off their butts to decently source these stubs. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not cleanup. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has been expanded to show notability. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 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.