Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nommel Place, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Nommel Place, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There are so many of these WP:GEOLAND fails. No WP:N and take a look at this map. If it is an unpopulated census tract or not legally recognized ares it needs RS. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The USGS topo map "Picacho SW", from which the GNIS entry was sourced, shows "Nommel Place [site]" with no other typical symbol. Looking at the satellite images shows nothing today. Searching finds it listed here, so I presume this is an old burial site. Clearly not a populated place of any kind or a location that otherwise meets GNG. It looks like there is List of cemeteries in California but not List of cemeteries in Arizona, so no place to redirect either. MB 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's the location of John Nommels' historic farm and possibly his mining claim as well. Made it on the maps because that's the sort of thing that makes it onto a map in the wild west. I understand the problems with the GNIS database, but am mostly concerned about the false identification of subdivisions as notable and much less concerned about rural places, so I also see no reason not to add a sentence and leave this article be.   SportingFlyer  T · C  23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Having looked at a lot of old topo maps in AZ and elsewhere now, they put everything on them, including people's generic ranches, farms, "places" for a building, and grain elevators: look at how many are marked on just this one! All of which (like Lenzie Ranch) dutifully logged into the GNIS, though in WA correctly as locales. Something that merely happened in the past isn't "historic", which would be "well-known or important"; one of hundreds of "Legal advertisements" listing every deed transaction in the newspaper isn't either of those or notability-contributing. It's funny how newspapers back in those days listed all the random comings-and-goings of whoever, since Yuma only had 2,000-some residents: the same column with Nommel in informs us that "F.F. Nelson was down from Palo-verde to purchase supplies last week" and "'Gene Ingram has returned from the coast, where he spent two weeks." Reywas92Talk 00:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Per above. Although Wikipedia is not a directory, I would support keeping places on old topo maps that are worthy of mention in an online encyclopedia. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If this place wasn't "worthy of mention" literally anywhere except a deed transaction and an overly detailed map ("This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject."), why would it be worthy of mention in its own article here? We have standards, which includes significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - it exists, but there's no there there. According to this list, there's at least one person permanently staying there. An advertorial here is not significant coverage. This map and this listing are not even wrong - they're for Washington state, not Arizona! Per WP:GEO, a redirect would be appropriate if we can find one: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." However, I can't figure out what would be an appropriate target article for a redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know they're for Washington, but it's the same type of topo map produced by the USGS showing that they attempt to be crazily comprehensive and that "Made it on the maps" (and by extension "made it in the GNIS") should not even be a starting point for determining notability since they'll mark any yahoo's ranch or homestead. Reywas92Talk 20:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2020 (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.