Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avra, Pima County, 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I find that the arguments of those citing GEOLAND have been adequately countered by those supporting deletion, and there is enough support for deletion here for a consensus to exist. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Avra, Pima County, Arizona

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

Dubiously meets the SNG GEOLAND (depending what counts as legal recognition) but doesn't meet the GNG (no SIG COV through google or newspaper). Since it doesn't meet GNG and is an undue weight on a parcel of land, this article does not have a place on wikipedia. See Talk:Notability for recent discussion in this favor. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Since it appears to meet WP:GEOLAND, it's a keep. Please link to the discussion to the contrary. Greenman (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because of the known unreliable GNIS and its regurgitator hometownlocator? That's pretty poor source review.  Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesnt meet GNG. So there cannot be an article of it. SNG is a shortcut for GNG but if it is shown through absence of source it doesn't meet GNG, then the article must be delete, or else violates it verifiability and What Wikipedia is not बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's saddening to see Mrs LaVera Lacey's lonesome and short-lived 1932&mdash;1933 post office being immortalized as a "populated place" by Wikipedia editors when the actual populated place that was there was Camp Pima at Tucson Mountain Park. The one that's in multiple histories of the place, such as  and the Arcadia Publishing books ( and ). Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: The sources provided are junk (GNIS, a GNIS regurgitator, and a trivial mention). I only searched news articles, (NB: further search of books and news added nothing), and I found lots of references to an Avra Valley (seems there was a heated controversy over water rights there back in the late 60s), but not much of it as a "community".  There is this:, a short-lived column that ran for a time in 1932, but I consider pieces like that to be trivial mentions (such-and-such church had a potluck, the local grange voted to oust Bubba Hunchsack).  Surely people lived there and it was an informally recognized "community" but I can't really see anything approaching significant secondary coverage.  But it's more than we have for a lot of these dots on maps who have articles thanks to GNIS, so I could be convinced to change my mind. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have Avra Valley and Avra Valley, Arizona, note. They aren't this place.  This place is at a crossroads of what used to be Avra Road (but was rebuilt by Pima County as Sandario Road some time after 1975 according to a construction permit that Google Books turned up) and  Picture Rocks Road.  A dot appears on maps from 1934 onwards, because it's the 1932 post office that is mentioned in .  What also appears on those maps at that same crossroads is the Rancho de Esperanza and the Camp Pima CCC camp that has loads of easy to find historical documentation, which gives us a lot more than is at Saguaro National Park, given that Tucson Mountain Park was originally a separate thing established by Pima County, not the federal government, in 1929. One has really to dig to find Mrs Lacey's post office anywhere.  Like Hanwell Park there's a hugely notable thing hiding behind a dot on a map and a bad article. Personally, I won't shed a single tear over this article being gone.  But I think that it's a saddening shame that the database importers hid the hugely notable thing that was actually at the crossroads from us with this dren. Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel 5969  TT me 18:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. From WP:GEOLAND, Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merely appearing as a locality in a geographical database -- especially one that is unreliable -- does not constitute a GEOLAND pass, and even if it did that does not mean the presumption of notability that GEOLAND affords is irrebuttable. The utter lack of sourcing to support this entry is clear evidence that it is not sufficiently documented for us to solidify it on the internet as real place.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2023 (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.