Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crookton, 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. (non-admin closure) Linguist111 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Crookton, Arizona

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

This is definitely a rail location; if nothing else, it was the west end of a major ATSF rerouting in the late 1950s, and I also found a picture of the section house there. Crookton Road is also well-known as a well-preserved section of the old US 66. What I can't find is any evidence there was a town here. There's a conspicuous (a currently pointless) bend in the road where it appears to have gone around the railroad facilities, but there's just no other sign of anything here, and I cannot find documentation of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The text needs amending as it's not a populated place. Rail enthusiasts refer to Crookton as a stretch of line . A map from the 1970s references (Old Route 66) "Crookton overpass" and "Crookton (site)" see (1st map). But the 'site' could just refer to the railway building/facilities. So the name's in use but there's little evidence that a settlement existed. I also checked Arizona Ghost Towns but Crookton isn't listed.


 * The article could be useful as a location finder for U.S. Route 66 in Arizona where Crookton is linked and mentioned several times. However, I don't think the page is likely to develop beyond a stub, so alternatively, perhaps a redirect to the aforelinked Route 66 article is preferable. Not sure. Rupples (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as a redirect is suggested, indirectly, but not really proposed. This is a possible ATD and I'm hoping more discussion would confirm this possibility or dismiss it in favor of simple deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not voting since I haven't looked into the standards for railway articles, but that does seem to be what this is. Nothing on Google Scholar, and all mentions in Google Books involve railways in some form. Elinruby (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NTRAINSTATION might be a good place to look if you're interested in the sourcing standards for notable railway articles. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elinruby (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that it's on Ranch Rd, which does have an I-40 exit. It's on the way to something called the Johnson Crater, about which I know nothing. (But it does have a Wikidata item). OTOH in the other direction, Ranch Rd goes to Seligman, which I would say is notable (German settlers and German restaurant). Past that are the Burma-Shave signs, which I would call notable, and Peach Springs is extremely notable as a starting point for the hike into the Hualapai reservation and the  Grand Canyon. So treating it as part of Rte 66 may be the way to go. Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to U.S. Route 66 in Arizona: I guess I will stop  being shy and propose it then! I can take a hint. Here is what I found when I did a deep dive into the maps. if you take the Ranch Road exit off I-40, and turn right, the location we've been looking at is not far, 2-3 miles, up the road. Past it, the road goes to the Johnson Crater, which appears to be just exactly that, then snakes up into the mountains between Ash Fork and the Grand Canyon, which it does not seem to reach. However, if you turn left from the Ranch Road exit, you are on one of the longer segments of Rte 66, which, for those who have never gotten their kicks there, snakes around I-40 in different places in the Southwestern United States. Seligman, Arizona turns out to be even more notable than I thought, and has an extensive article that includes several chunks of railroad history that made my eyes glaze over, but might tell someone more knowledgeable than me what that railway installation might be in Crookton. I think Seligman is a little too far from Crookton to be a natural redirect target, unless there is some tie through the railroad, however, which is why I am proposing the road per . I am not advocating the anchor as a  the way they they do, but that's simply because the.timeframe isn't clear to me. I don't oppose it if somebody thinks it applies. Past Seligman, as I mentioned before, you go through about 30 miles of Burma-Shave signs. (This part is based on memories of driving through there, but they do have an article.) Then comes Peach Springs, which is the market town of an indigenous community, and the way you get into the remote western part of the Grand Canyon. Somebody should add that to the Peach Springs article btw, although I did note it on the talk page. Hope this helps. Elinruby (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby Thanks for the alert. I've been busy with further searches and I am now in the throes of building a case for Keep! The reason is that Crookton was/is primarily a railway point and the Route 66 designation is secondary. Because of this dual road/railway identity dilemma I don't see a valid redirect. I'm in the process of putting up sources that give an idea how the article could be developed, so please bear with me.
 * Like you, I considered a redirect or merge to Seligman (and as an alternative Ash Fork) but agree they're not ideal because of the distances involved (10 and 13 miles respectively). Rupples (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Comment. The photograph of the railway building provided by the AfD nominator, gave me the idea of looking for similar photos and one was found for Hymer, a depopulated place in Kansas. If Hymer has a standalone page, why not Crookton? But acknowledge that perhaps Hymer should be put up for an AfD discussion.
 * Anyway, searches for sources to expand this article, though apparently reliable and independent, may not be sufficient to allow the retention of Crookton as a standalone article. The article may still fall short of WP:GNG but I'm putting them forward to illustrate possible expansion.


 * 1) This book on Arizona place names describes Crookton as a point on the railway named after General George Crook . Crook was engaged in the Yavapai War - Yavapai being the county in which Crookton lies.
 * 2) A multitude of Internet Archive sources for the 1959 rerouting of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway such as.
 * 3) Crookton referred to in a traffic report  3rd item down (not significant of itself but shows the place is referenced in contemporary sources).
 * 4) Mention of the Crookton Road exit off Interstate 40 in a number of travel guides such as.
 * If Crookton is viewed as an area rather than just a railway halt, then possible inclusion of:


 * 1) Archeological digs near to Crookton Station Road  and
 * 2) Details of geographical features such as Picacho Butte
 * Bit of abstract trivia


 * 1) A sculpture by Kenneth Price called Crookton.
 * I believe "keep" is preferable because the dual nature of the railway/road aspects plus the distance to other places makes it hard to recommend a suitable candidate for a redirect or merge.
 * Rupples (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. We can't have an article on a populated place without a reliable source saying it's a populated place, and we don't. WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, if it isn't one of those (and we would need a source to prove that) then it has to pass the GNG. The sources listed above which mention it as a stretch of road or railway don't come remotely close to showing this. Since there are multiple possible targets I think deletion is better than redirection.  Hut 8.5  18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has now been changed to indicate that the subject isn't a populated place, but I still don't think it's notable. Unlike populated places it would be rather unusual for a point on a railroad to be notable, and that's what the article says the subject is.  Hut 8.5  19:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I didn't expect to relist this discussion a second time but the opinions have actually grown and gotten more complicated than in the first week of the discussion. I still don't see a rough consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal given 's interest, don't delete. I understand the issue of it not meeting specific criteria, but if somebody wants to develop our coverage of the area then let them work, is what I say, in draft if necessary. There is likely to be readership for whatever emerges, given that many international travelers have the Grand Canyon on their bucket list and will be researching an itinerary. Since railways are not in my repertoire, I am not sure how interesting the place is to a buff; but if I correctly understood the link showed me, there is nothing inherently notable about railways, and GNG applies. HtH. Elinruby (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Ok, look, I understand the point that it doesn't seem to be an inhabited place. I pretty much agree with that, and if it's categorized that way, then I also think that that is wrong. Yet there seems to be a historicity and possible notability here. This followup assumes that is still interested in working on the article, because, to be clear, I have other fish to fry. But I don't see the issue with treating the place as point of interest along Route 66. For example. My father used to make side trips along the way when we were travelling, based on sightings of a particular bird. I am not arguing that such sightings would be wiki-notable, just that there are more criteria for notability than are dreamt of in GEOLAND. In hopes this advances the discussion, Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Further comment. The article as it stands is misleading, so, for that reason I won't oppose delete. The only evidence for Crookton being a populated place is the picture of the section house, now gone.


 * The article is wikilinked on the Southern Transcon and U.S. Route 66 in Arizona pages and that's the reason I gave a Keep !vote and put up possible sources to expand the article. However, it may be sufficient to add a sentence to those articles explaining where Crookton is.


 * Was hoping for a bit more feedback on my suggestions for expanding the article. I haven't changed the page because I'm not sure Crookton's best described in the infobox e.g. Crookton, "former railway halt", Crookton "Route 66", Crookton "an area"?  Additional searches haven't yielded anything further, so I guess it's just the name itself that's used. Probably not enough for a separate article because there's hardly anything there to describe and the sources I put up are in essence mentions of the name or of indirect relevance, and hence don't satisfy notability requirements. If it's any help, I'll replace my keep !vote with "Comment". Rupples (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If an infobox field is confusing I am in favor of simply omitting the infobox field, as a rule. "Abandoned railway buildings"? Archeological site? Elinruby (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Excellent point - misleading "populated" now removed. What Crookton relates to can be explained in the text. Rupples (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not certain whether that means that you think that you can establish notability for a separate article. My current position is that if so you should do that. If not, I am not going to work on it, and and we haven't enunciated a reason why it's notable, since we agree it's not currently a populated place. Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I have the impression I'm "flogging a dead horse" because the sources I put up look insufficient to establish GNG. Since I haven't found anything else to add (and not for want of looking), I'm not going to make a recommendation and accept whatever transpires. Appreciate your comments. Rupples (talk) 21:53, 20 January 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.