Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundad, 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. The article has been substantially improved and though this is on the edge of what should be kept as a (once-)populated place, those supporting retention of the article are not clearly in the wrong. BD2412 T 01:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sundad, Arizona

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

Having a greaqt deal of trouble with this one, as sources tend to assume that ruins of buildings equal ghost town. There was a mine here, and it's not beyond possibility that the foundations seen are all of mine buildings. Many sources say there was a TB sanatorium here, but otehrs say that they only though about putting one here and that it was never built. Almost all of them say "not much is known about Sundad". The elaborate rock patterns, BTW, appear to be new. I couldn't find any documentation of the "Sundad" sign before 2006. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep due to lack of deletion rationale WP:SKCRIT, although even if there was a rationale, I'd argue to keep, because there was a mine here and some history, which I've added. I wish the links here worked, so we could get more info. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/53d82203e4b06f0f87b75b2c WP:GEOLAND has a really low bar and this passes it. CT55555 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One gets tired of the ritual language after doing several hundred of these, but as it appears it must be uttered: this fails WP:GEOLAND because it cannot be shown from reliable sources that it is a settlement. Mines must meet WP:GNG, and I can just barely determine that there was a mine here, much less that it meets any criterion for notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Known location
 * Justwatchmee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete - Whatever this place was, it hasn't received enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - this indicates it was a known location, this which calls it a ghost town, indicating it was populated at one time, this which also indicates that it was populated at one time, this which indicates that folks were still living there in the late 1930s, this and this are verbatim entries in two publications, indicating this was a known location. Also, this, while a brief mention, is a mention in a list of other populated locations. Onel 5969  TT me 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Onel5969: Just a heads up, I would recommend removing the Wikipedia portion of the URL to make it more accessible:
 * https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/clip/77783901/ (Requires logging in)
 * https://www.newspapers.com/clip/77783901/arizona-republic/ (Free to view by anyone)
 * Just in case a user without access to the Wikipedia Library wants to view your sources! Why? I Ask (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: WP:GEOLAND says that populated places without legal recognition are decided on a case-by-case basis per reliable sources. However, all the sources above simply establish that it existed. But after a lengthy search, I can not find anything more than trivial mentions anywhere. (I only stopped looking at Newspapers.com after the first hundred or so entries where it began to give me instances of "Sunday" and "Standard".) Why? I Ask (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. We have no evidence that this place is or was legally recognised. If it isn't then it has to pass the WP:GNG, which it clearly doesn't. The Keep rationales above which argue the place should be kept because a source includes it in a list of populated places, describes it as a "known location", or says somebody lived there once are inconsistent with the core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR, and if this wasn't an article about a place they would not be taken at all seriously.  Hut 8.5  19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per 's analysis above. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your vote doesn't really make much sense. Simply name dropping a town doesn't provide enough coverage per WP:GEOLAND, so voting speedy keep on such an edge case isn't helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable former mining settlement with encyclopedic content. Plenty of hits in Google Books.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:GEOLAND with sufficient notability through GNG. WP:NPLACE is also met by subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:GEOLAND to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NPLACE are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or GEOLAND. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Deletion could be considered if GEOLAND wasn’t met (which would also weaken the GNG case), but in this case the relevant notability guidelines are passed and the article should not be eligible for deletion. I will also point out that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:GEOLAND with sufficient notability through GNG. WP:NPLACE is also met by subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:GEOLAND to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NPLACE are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or GEOLAND. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per sources provided above. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article being updated with new sources, a string of arguments to prove the article's retention.--Bexaendos (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (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.