Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puertocito, 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__. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Puertocito, Arizona

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

Another mass-created GNIS stub. Google search and Google Newspaper Archive searches turned empty. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly non-notable; only sources are GNIS and a site that mirrors GNIS, possibly also fails WP:V as no information could be found. Satellite view of coordinates shows empty desert with a road maybe a mile to the west.  WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Literally nothing on satellite besides desert and such for miles in almost any direction. Definitely not a "populated place". Typical WP:GNIS fail. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another Wikipedia lie. The GNIS never said that this was a populated place in the first place.  The feature code was "locale", not "ppl".  Yet this article said "populated place" in its first revision.  Given the proximity of the letter "P" of "Puertocito Wash" (the head end of the Altar Wash) on some maps, I suspect yet another GNIS comedy of errors that got the a separate "locale" in addition to the record for the Wash itself.  Certainly there's no Puertocito nor Puertecito in any Pima history that I can find.  Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched the newspaper archives, google, and google scholar. This is not a populated area. There was some survey work done around the area but that doesn't make it notable and the survey work does not note a population.  Dr vulpes  (Talk) 06:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a wash, or dry creekbed. Possibly notable under GEOFEAT if there's anything on the wash but unlikely given the other source searches here - I didn't look. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * DeleteAll that has been said here is true.James.folsom (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (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.