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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 redirect‎ to Southern Transcon without prejudice against changing to a better target, if found. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crookton, Arizona

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Crookton, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't keep using WP:NPLACE as a rational and seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. It's just a point on a railway line and I've found no indication that that particular point is of any notability. TarnishedPathtalk 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not a legally recognized place, and my search on DDG, Google Books and Scholar turned unfruitful. WP:NPLACE says to defer to GNG in this case. It is misleadingly categorized as a populated place in the navbox. Just look at the satellite map to see why that is wrong.
Ca talk to me! 10:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before it was "officially" determined around 2020 that GNIS was not a reliable source, and not a gazetteer after all, because someone (I appreciated the background here) made 10s of thousands of crappy data-dump articles, people like me used it in good faith to label locations as populated places. It's interesting to me that these location AfDs seem to assume that the people who have started these articles were trying to intentionally mislead or even blatantly lie about someplace being a populated place, when in fact we were using what was at one time considered a reliable source. I just want to put it out there for the record. Oh, and I've asked this several times, but what guideline is appropriate to cite for "I looked at the satellite map and determined X."? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'd actually love to find the correct policy or guideline about this as this is also something that comes up a lot in these AfDs. If it's just common sense, that's fine but please say so. It's hard to prove a negative, I get it. In my region, there are reference books where the author writes about interesting places, and he would say that a place was not much of a going concern anymore. (e.g. "It used to have a school, a church, and a store, but there nothing left at the site today.") It's too bad there aren't more such 3rd-party sources around. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Crook, for whom it is named. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? That article has no mention of the place, nor should it, as it's a completely non-notable unpopulated railroad waypoint with no connection to its namesake. They might as well have named it King Henry VIII. In the unlikely event anyone wanted information about Crookton, they would probably search for the railroad division, not the historical figure. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that George Crook is the wrong target for a redirect, but a touch more civility about the matter might be in order. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also linked Crookton Cutoff in Hassayampa Flyer. Incidentally, the cutoff article was a not-ready-for-primetime deleted draftified article. If you don't have access to deleted drafts, it's three unsourced sentences that could easily be researched and added to another rail article, likely doesn't need a standalone. Valfontis (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crookton,_Arizona_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1233507009"