Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theba, 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. Note: one of the reasons that inhabited and formerly inhabited places are inherently notable is that we presume the availability of the reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which sources seem to have been adduced by those claiming "keep" here and there has been no counterpoint to those sources - i.e., showing that they are bogus. In order to avoid disruption I think the issuance of a strong caution against nominating articles about inhabited or formerly inhabited places is in order. If they cannot be verified, that's one thing, but generally speaking, if the place exists or existed as shown by one reliable source, other sources will likely be found - perhaps paper ones, which are no less valid - if given sufficient time. Ideally, a source should be in every such article, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and nominators should look for sources before nominating such articles, because when the sources are found these nominations reflect poorly on those who cause others to run around to find them under short deadlines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theba, Arizona

Theba, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. It is my assertion that the mere existence of an entry in the USGS GNIS database - which is in many cases over 30 years old - is not enough to establish the notability of a purported "populated place", let alone its existence. Sure, there is an entry in the database calling Theba a "populated place" [1] - but then again, there is an entry for the Citrus Grove Trailer Park [2]. I do not believe that, without additional information to show that a "populated place" is notable, the GNIS is enough to warrant an article. There simply exists no information about this "community" beyond what the old GNIS entry tells us, and to me that does not establish any kind of notability. Shereth 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom There has to be something you can say more about the place aside from "it exists". So unless someone can show that there is something more, this article should be deleted. At most, its existence can be mentioned in the county article. --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable. Communities always can be counted on to have local history bits about them: can you assure us that, to the best of your knowledge, there are no printed sources about this place? I don't ask you to say that there are no such sources, but only that you have worked to establish that there aren't. Moreover, if you have established that this place doesn't currently exist (which seems rather doubtful, given the Google satellite view of the site), are you certain that it's not a ghost town? See this deletion debate: ghost towns can be notable, even if the community doesn't exist anymore. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, Polaron, there's more on here than "it exists". If there weren't anything else, I couldn't have given you the satellite link. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no serious problem with the notion that populated places can be notable, but where do we draw the line? From the perspective of the USGS, a "populated place" can include everything from a city of 8 million down to a trailer park of 8. Ghost towns can be notable becuase we have reliable sources that say so; a GNIS entry does little more than tell us that someone marked the spot "Theba" at some point in the past - it proves nothing beyond that point. I made a good-faith effort to dredge up information about this "community" last night (I have a vested interest in Arizona places) and came up empty-handed. If someone can demonstrate any tidbits of community history - or, frankly, anything other than the fact there was a dot on a map called "Theba", I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Shereth 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nyttend, why does this require a separate article if this is all that can be said about it? Can't you include this information in the county article? Or you might even think about making a "List of unincorporated communities in Maricopa County, Arizona" and make a table with all your geographic information there. Can any one say why we need a separate article for this locality? --Polaron | Talk 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - this isn't notable. It completely fails not only the GNG, but the spirit of the guideline as well. There notion that all populated places are notable is also contested.陣内Jinnai 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect as there is no "longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable" - this argument is just another slant on WP:IKNOWIT. Notability requires verifiable evidence; without it, the article will only fail Wikipedia's content policies. In any case, you can't write an encylopedic article on thin air - you need coverage from reliable secondary sources. This stub has no coverage, other than thin air (which must be thin at 728 feet above sea level). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may be a ghost town now, but there are plenty of sources available to verfify it once had people and businesses, as recently as 1978. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Towns, whether currently existing or historical, are inherently notable. As Bearian pointed out, sources exist demonstrating this was a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to come across as being a little tendentious here, but has anyone actually looked at/reviewed these sources? One of them refers to the Theba Arizona USGS Quad - the name of a topographic map, not a place. Two of them are merely mentions in captions. Two are Google Books snippets that are impossible to determine what they actually say (and to be honest their use on the article is a little disingenuous unless someone has actual access to the books, and not just the snippet). One of the sources is even a website that essentially says "I can't find any information about Theba". One of them is even referencing a Theba in Yuma county, quite removed from the purported location discussed here. How this collection of stray mentions amounts to anything substantive feels like an extreme stretch to me. Shereth 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The basis for the consensus that all populated places are notable is that--as this article shows--there always are sources if you look--even if we don't start looking for print. A map is a perfectly good secondary source. The GNIS database is just a start, but it's a good way to start. The practical reason for always keeping them as separate articles rather than merging is uniformity and the avoidance of these unnecessary debates. DGG (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a travel guide. A map is not a secondary source, it is the graphic equivalent of a travel guide or a telephone directory. If maps were reliable souces, every detail on them would be notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, there does not appear to be a consensus for the principle of "all places are notable and merit a stand-alone article" is not part of any guideline. It is only articulated in several essays and in WP:OUTCOMES, which is only a natural result of the fact that it only takes one person to create an article and a consensus to delete. So the fact that there is no consensus either way means that these articles tend to be kept. If there truly is a consensus for this inherent notability of places, its proponents should formalize it in a guideline proposal and see if it indeed has consensus. --Polaron | Talk 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are already several other sources and references on the article about this place. It may be notable for it's previous status as a mining town, and as a ghost town by now it would also be notable. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Previous consensus has repeatedly been that real places are inherently notable. In addition, this article is very well sourced for its size. Claims that the USGS map is not a secondary source are irrelevant, since it is a reliable source. Articles regularly use government compiled data (Census information is only one example) and are considered to be reliable sources. Finally, a place no longer being populated no more ends its notability than a person becomes non-notable if they died. Edward321 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since it is obvious that no one is bothering to actually check the references and happily assuming that a bunch of links = well referenced, I'm just going to withdraw my nomination under protest. Nothing in the "references" given states that Theba is or was a mining town, that it is or was populated, or that it is or was ever considered a "community" in any sense of the word. Apparently there is a (misguided) consensus that real places are inherently notable - a patently silly idea - but if it is consensus then I must concede that point. Still, I find it extremely disappointing that people are readily willing to accept the existence of links on an article as proof of facts that are not supported by the information in the links themselves, hence my withdrawal is made under protest. Cheers, Shereth 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Real places" are not per se notable, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reston, Florida ended with a deletion. But that place was a housing development rather than a recognized settlement, and it wasn't even on Google Maps. This place has some government recognition (USGS). I am calling to keep verifiable places like that since settlements are the kind of subjects which a comprehensive encyclopedia traditionally covers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a comprehensive travel guide that traditionally covers every settlement, such as Wikitravel. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Wikitravel only covers places worth travelling to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were anything else, WP:V wouldn't be enough as they'd have to show notability. TBH nothing here shows notability. If anything it confirms the lack of it. Furthermore as there is no SNG on populated places, it is subject to the WP:GNG. Wikipedia isn't travel guide or listing of trivial information.陣内Jinnai 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another case where we forget that WP:GNG is simply a section of a guideline, not a "law" or "policy" and the heading of that guideline stipulates that it is "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Population centers have long been considered an obvious exception even without hyperlinks to New York Times articles about a towns that ceased to exist before Al Gore invented the internet.--Oakshade (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Southern Pacific Company had a railroad station there, served by Wells Fargo: [3] --NE2 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not claim that all places are inherently notable, and in fact, I have my own standards. I think that Theba, AZ meets my own criteria. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am somewhat curious - what leads you to believe that Theba meets point #3 of your criteria? Shereth 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, the census block that encompasses the location (block 3110 in tract 7233.02) reports a population of 2 in the 2000 census. --Polaron | Talk 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should try and propose that as a formal subject-specific notability guideline. Without a subject-specific guideline, places will be subject to the general notability guideline. You have a reasonable set of criteria and it would be great to formalize it. See Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) for previouse proposals. --Polaron | Talk 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all currently or formally populated places that are/were officially recognized are inherently notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears to be a community now, even if has population of only 2 in the last census. It would be okay even if current population is 0, as it is a valid former community then. Another reference to it is as the nearest community to a NRHP-listed place, which I just added to the article. doncram (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created article Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona) which is a valid article about the NRHP-listed place. Would Administrators present please help stop administrator Shereth from edit warring in moving that article and even deleting redirect from the NRHP name for the place, and deleting mention of the official name of the National Register for the place. At this moment, the article is located at Painted Rocks (Arizona) but it should be moved to "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)". I requested nicely enough at Shereth's talk page that he/she open a wp:RM if he/she wishes for it to be moved from that article name. I would appreciate if another administrator would move it back to that name as the default, and tell Shereth not to edit war. doncram (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RM discussion open at the article talk page, please continue it there. Shereth 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, there is discussion now at Talk:Painted Rocks (Arizona). I appreciate somewhat that after edit warring to get his way, Shereth has acceded to my reasonable request to open a contested move discussion there. However, not part of the article name issue necessarily, is Shereth's further edit warring within the article to remove mention of Theba, Arizona from its contents as well as from its title. This seems wp:POINTY to me, that Shereth is edit warring as if to win the present AfD discussion about Theba, Arizona at all costs, in that way. It is a fact that the National Register of Historic Places lists this petroglyph site as being in or near Theba. It is appropriate for the NRHP infobox in the article to show that, per the default NRHP infobox output which I used in creating the article. doncram (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit a whopping single time, and you have managed to use the phrase "edit warring" three times in a single paragraph. Have you ever read WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL? I do not appreciate your scurrilous insinuations over a single revert and request that you knock it off and stop flinging mud - I have made good on my end to try and discuss this issue in a reasoned manner and it is now time for you to do the same. Shereth 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: previous consensus hasn't always been simply that populated places are inherently notable. For instance, this AFD decided that so long as a place has a name, and that name has appeared in print, that location is notable forever after. No people, no buildings, no census data, no info? No problem. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World Book Encyclopedia 1970 lists Theba as having a population of 200 persons. That is why I started the article; 200 people is enough to be a legit community even if it is a ghost town today. Burningview (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really, really don't want to come across as snarky here but .. the bulk of this discussion would have been avoided if you would have included that as a reference in the article to begin with! Do you have any other references (remember, paper references are every bit as valid as online sources) at your disposal that you could help shore up the article with and stave off further concerns? Shereth 15:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will include them. The reason that I did not put the reference on there at the time was I wanted a second opinion first. 1970 World Book has Theba on a map in Arizona, and includes the population of 200 also, but there was no article on theba; (of course because its not significant). I wanted help thats all. Sorry if I stirred you up like that. My apologies. Burningview (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I realize that I can come across strongly at times and for that I apologize as well; it's just that I am frequently misunderstood and sometimes get defensive about it. In spite of appearances I do not have a vendetta against Theba (or any article for that matter) - I have a vendetta against unsourced information. For what it is worth, I am satisfied with the level of attention being devoted to this article (and I would close this discussion, except that other editors have standing arguments to delete) and hope to see it improved; I intend to hit up the library this weekend to see if I can find any info, and possibly drive out there to see if any useful pictures can be taken (I'd like to hit up Painted Rocks and snap some pictures and it is on the way). Shereth 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and you plan on doing all of that? Thats impressive. You sure work hard for wikipedia.Burningview (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - I live nearby so it's no big deal. There are some other sites in the area that are in need of pictures (such as the Gillespie Dam) that I would like to stop by, too, so it's no big deal. But thank you again. Shereth 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current and former populated places that can be verified to exist/have existed as independent settlements are (imo, and per consensus) notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons as others. It is a populated place, which has things about it mentioned in other sources. Anyone who wanted to visit Painted Rocks would want to know where the nearest town was. If its a popular tourist attraction, then surely the nearest town would have businesses catering to tourists. Dream Focus 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of those sources provide evidence of notability. If there is no evidence that a town is notable, then it fails Wikipedia is not a directory of random stuff. I don't see how a directory listing can impart notability on article that is itself little more than a directory listing. I mean, are topics about human settlements exempt from the requirement WP:V for coverage from reliable secondary sources because they are about settlements or about humans? Why stop at human settlements, and exempt humans from WP:V as well? Then we could list every person in Wikipedia, just based on telephone directory listings and credit ratings. If human settlements are exempt from Wikipedia content policies, then what is the point of having such polices at all? Anyone could dream up an exemption for anything. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the ol' slippery slope prediction. Don't worry. In Wikipedia's eight-plus year history of consensus finding population centers as a common sense exception to WP:N (which, by the way, stipulates in its heading that "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.") has not lead to articles about every person in Wikipedia based on telephone directory listings and credit ratings. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't have to imagine what the slippery slope looks like, because Wikipedia has content policies which tell us where it leads to and what the pitfalls are - POV pushing and advert spam, to name but two. It seems to me that in eight-plus year history of consensus finding, the common sense inclusion criteria is WP:V and its requirement for reliable, third-party sources to act as a check on these sort of problems is the common sense solution. There has been the trend for schools to write their own article without evidence of notability for quite some time, but if you were to argue that they are inherently notable, you still have the problem of what to do with coatrack articles and promotion of fee paying schools. Without reliable, third-party sources, stubs on settlements will become a battle to "get on the map" for every town with an ice-cream stand or grocery store looking for business. Promoting exemptions from notability is a fundamentally flawed. We have been down that road before, and it leads to infingements of Wikipedia's content policies, and acts as a magnet for original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When dealing with historic entities, online searches often don't pull up much, so you must use books. There's a population entry for the community in my 1961 World Book Encyclopedia (estimated population of 200), which I've added to the article, with in-line cite. I can't find much on-line (possibly this), but a NewspaperArchive search might pull up tons of stuff. Kudos to the people working on these former communities (and kudos to Shereth on offering to get some images of the area). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a Newspaper Archive search, but it didn't pull up much of anything useful: just that the rail line at Theba was still operating in 1931, there were some auctions in Theba in the 1960s, and there was a sexual discrimination case in 1977 at a school in Arizona named Theba Elementary (which isn't necessarily in the same place). I'll check another newspaper archiving site later this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I realize that consensus has generally been that currently and formerly populated places are inherently notable, but consensus can change, and in this case I hope it does. I'm a firm believer in the spirit, logic, and application of general notability guidelines--the idea that we need secondary, independent sources to write an an encyclopedia article on something, and at least some of those sources should address the topic directly and detail. Without such sources, article writing becomes either an exercise in synthesis, or you end up with a collection of somewhat related facts with no context or interpretation to hold them together. And this is exactly what we have here. Yilloslime TC 05:22, 15 June 2009 (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/Theba,_Arizona&oldid=1069472231"