Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guthrie, Arizona (2nd nomination)


 * 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 consensus is this meets GEOLAND Star   Mississippi  01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Guthrie, Arizona
AfDs for this article:


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

The previous nomination appears to have been an act of spite, but in reexamination I find that this seems to have been nothing more than a rail spot which evaporated with the steam locomotive. No evidence that it was a town, and the current houses nearby have no relation to the older place. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The GNIS entry says there was a post office there 1901-22 and a Wells Fargo office. this article] shows there was scheduled train service. this] shows it was a junction of two railroads, the Morenci Southern Railroad and the Arizona and New Mexico Railway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 2022-02-09T01:12:49 (UTC)
 * We have consistently deleted rail locations like this where there isn't and wasn't a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have always !voted to delete rail sidings, but this was a small mining town. Sidings don't have scheduled service with timetable published in the newspaper. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - irrelevant locality name. Is there any reliable reference to show that the name is in use - other than in some ancient almanac or railway timetable? Why not add a mention in the relevant county article? Silent Billy (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether the name is "in use". This town existed and had a small population. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Arcadia Publishing has this, once again. Guthie was a "town" per .  So we know what it specifically was, rather than the generic "populated place".  The GNIS description is rubbish, the sort of thing that one expects from the GNIS given how that particular sausage was made.   is clearer, giving a better explanation.  Guthrie Smith was not in fact the sheriff of Guthrie mining town, but a director of the mining company.  He was a Sheriff of Banff.
 * I found a few more sources about this mining town, and there's probably a short paragraph of stuff that one could wring from them. The population was "about 30" in 1922, for example.  Pretty much nothing in the present article is helpful for a rewrite, its sole sources being the unreliable GNIS and a "hometown locator" with not a single actual history book in sight, and this article at present is verifiably false. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * GNIS is perfectly reliable for the location and elevation, which is all it really sources. The fact that you agree this was a small mining town validates its existence, therefore it meets Wp:NGO. MB 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a dramatic U-turn from where, only a few bullet points above, you were arguing that it sources stuff about Wells Fargo. I specifically said the GNIS description, which is not something that I agree with, because that description talks about a "Sheriff Guthrie Smith" rather than advocate John Guthrie Smith, as I already explained. And if one knows how the GNIS sausage was made, one realizes that it isn't even reliable for location data, as some locations were taken from where the words were on the map, which in some cases were just the middles of areas (with not even dot markers), resulting in an erroneous precision.  Then there's what Reliability of GNIS data relates about the &hellip; variety of sources that were used to compile the GNIS data back in the 20th century.   is in fact a good case in point. The Hubbard farm was a 704 acre tract of prairie land, not an exact point, and we know where it was (which is not where the GNIS co&ouml;ordinates, taken from the word on a map, put it) because the Haven Hubbard Home is still there. In any other context an article whose sole content was verifiably false would be unequivocally a hoax article.  Policy is not a suicide pact, and does not require us to keep outright falsehoods in article space until someone ambles along years from now to fix them.  After all, the article does not say that this was (not is) a small mining town, and since I'm in fact the first to say that I'm not really agreeing with anyone, here or the writers of the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't have access to the printed sources, but I will accept the above assertion that Guthrie had a population of 30 in 1922 and was a small mining town. Meets GEOLAND. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, is this the same Guthrie that has a listed bridge (pages 392-395)? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of how texts referring to a place as the location of something are not strong references. You can look at the map shown in the document and see that the bridge is not particularly near Guthrie; it's actually somewhat closer to Two Way. And of course, it doesn't say anything about what Guthrie was. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tks, agree, it was just me going down an interesting (for those who like bridges:) rabbit hole. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of how texts referring to a place as the location of something are not strong references. You can look at the map shown in the document and see that the bridge is not particularly near Guthrie; it's actually somewhat closer to Two Way. And of course, it doesn't say anything about what Guthrie was. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tks, agree, it was just me going down an interesting (for those who like bridges:) rabbit hole. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it passes geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 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.