Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riordan, 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. Updates to the article since the deletion nomination have provided sufficient reliable sourcing to demonstrate its notability. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Riordan, Arizona

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

Added to GNIS from one of the various editions of Arizona Place Names; I found the entry in a different edition, however, and it states that this was a Santa Fe RR station. That's reasonably consistent with the topo maps, which do not have it as a name, but do show it sitting next to the "Riordan Overpass" on I-40. I had to restrict searching a lot because the Riordans were quite prominent locally (their mansion is a state park in Flagstaff, about five miles east), but I came across nothing suggesting that this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - was a populated place back in the 1910s and 1920s as indicated by: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this about the WWI draft station, this, showing there was a school there, this, again about the school, this about the mill, this, a list of rates from populated places, this about voter registration, this, this, this, this, this, about a home in Riordan, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, again about the school in the 1930s. Apparently it was a station, which developed into a small community with a mill and a school, which eventually declined with the decline of the railroad. Onel 5969  TT me 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Onel's source finding. I suspect it may also have an entry in Thelma Heatwole's compendium of Arizona ghost towns, I'm working to get that book from my library. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. Per WP:V, in order to have an article on a populated place we need a reliable source which says it's a populated place. GNIS is not reliable for this (see this discussion), and "AZ Hometown Locator" isn't reliable at all, if it does anything other than recycling GNIS. Sources need to do more than "indicate" that something is a populated place for us to use them for this. Trying to infer the existence of a populated place from sources which say there was a school there, there was a sawmill there, etc, is original research. Verifiability and no original research are non-negotiable core policies here. WP:GEOLAND also says that populated places without legal recognition need to pass the WP:GNG, and passing mentions in newspapers clearly do not do this.  Hut 8.5  13:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have found a good number of older newspaper and book sources which cover Riordan, which is a ghost town and not a modern community. I've added a bit to the article, including 1920s and 1940 population figures. More work will need to be done, but the 1969 news article in the Arizona Republic, now in the Riordan article, is a good example of significant coverage. This article was basically unsourced since the Hometown Locator site isn't reliable, but the article is no longer unsourced. More work will follow in the next few days. Firsfron of Ronchester  15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the article itself has many sources that contradict the claim that it was not an inhabited settlement. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Just enough coverage of the history to support an article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 November 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.