Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darling, 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 keep. Tone 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Darling, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note This is a cinder pit, called Darling Pit after William B. Darling, railway engineer. It might even pass GNG:, .--Pontificalibus 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, this is a gravel pit, as well as a former stop on the railroad. GNIS] even shows there was once a building there it. Certainly not a populated place. Just another minor stop on the railroad best listed in Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway if that were ever expanded sufficiently. MB 02:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Winona, Arizona. Apparently Darling is the name for the Winona station on railroad charts, possibly due to the cinder pit. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This nomination needs to be updated.  It is a second nomination for deletion.    Darling Arizona First nomination for deletion.  Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Winona, Arizona. While this seems to refer to an area located at Darling Cinder Pit, it is not clear that Darling was a settlement. The renaming of Winona station to Darling confuses matters. It would be least confusing to cover everything in the Winona article.Pontificalibus 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete LOL at 7&6=thirteen's attempt to refbomb the article: Timeanddate.com machine-importing all the coordinates in the GNIS does not mean "somebody considers this to be a place" (as if a human wrote haha), and the Darling Cinder Pit being part of the hemisphere that can see the July 2020 lunar eclipse isn't notable. Redirect to Winona is fine, looks like the cinder pit is still in use. Reywas92Talk 20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the most frustrating thing is there's a chance this article could pass WP:GNG as a non-populated place separate from Winona as an article on the cinder pit, as it has indeed been written about, but now we've got a source-bombed article, and there's only about one or two of those sources which come close to demonstrating notability under GNG (and even with the new sources, the article currently doesn't include the clipping I found which makes clear Darling is just the railroad's name for the Winona station/siding.) SportingFlyer  T · C  03:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We can split this to Darling Cinder Pit per this source which states "Arizona is #1 cinder producer in the country with an annual production of about 1 million tons. Superlite's Darling Cinder Pit is the largest producer in the state." We currently don't have any articles on cinder mines, so this would be a good place to start. It passes WP:GNG. Then Darling, Arizona could redirect to Winona, Arizona, where the station name and pit are mentioned in the lead. <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

These are good ideas. Although Darling (or the cinder pit) is a continual important point on the railroad. I still have lots of sources to add concerning that. Where that material winds up (False choice? WP:Not paper so there could be some duplication) could be an issue. Of course, there is a problem with your ruthlessly trimming of WP:RS discussion of Darling, Arizona. It looks like you are trying to skew the result in the pending AFD, where we are at issue about WP:GNG. Some of you have talked about "ref bombs"; I am talking about your 'ref bombing.' <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per the sources now in the article. Not the article it was when this PROD was started.  WP:Before.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per 7&6=thirteen. Sources there now are good. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? Darling is not a populated place. We know Darling Cinder Pit is notable, and Winona's railroad station which was renamed "Darling" is obviously mentioned by sources. However why should these two things share an article? Surely it makes more sense to mention the railroad activity at Winona's station in the Winona article, and then either have a separate article on the cinder pit, or also discuss that in the Winona article because that's the place where it's located.<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus  17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The proper procedure probably needs to be that this article gets moved to Darling Cinder Pit, and then Darling, Arizona gets redirected to Winona, Arizona, which would then be edited to have a link to the cinder pit. Keeping this outright as a populated place makes no sense given what we've identified here. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:24, 19 January 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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough valid referenced information now about the area to justify an article for it.  D r e a m Focus  15:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes GNG with the all the references. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 27 January 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.