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 merge to Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons Grove, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not much to be seen here on a map. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to be a bit of retaliatory nom (along with several other articles) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr., which now seems to be headed for the deletion. And since this editor has never shown a propensity for Arizona geography articles. Passes WP:GEOLAND, since, according to GNIS it is has a "an official federally recognized name." And was part of a U.S. Geological Survey as per the GNIS source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My !voting record and AfD participation is available for anyone to see. I participate on multiple AfDs across every subject. I am sure Onel5969 has acted in good faith in creating these many non-notable Geoland articles. Unfortunately the fifty or so articles must all be nominated since they do not come close to satisfying SNG or GNG. Since the many articles created are not Legally recognized per the SNG of WP:GEOLAND - they must then pass WP:GNG as Populated places without legal recognition. They clearly do not pass. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There was a cabin there, it's noted by a couple newspapers [1] [2] and as a stopping point for wilderness adventurers. Probably just scrapes by. SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge - SportingFlyer, The Tucson Citizen article is referring to a bus stop on a WWII emergency inter-city route between Tucson and Marana, so that must be a different place. Parsons Grove looks to be at one end of Parsons Canyon in the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness. Satellite images do show what appear to be two dilapidated structures. No evidence this was ever a populated place, apparently it was listed on topographic maps as a reference point along a road cut through the mountain ridge above Parsons Canyon. Insufficient coverage for GNG as required for Geoland#2. MB 16:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (post-relist response) That's fair, it looks as if Parsons Grove is a separate location between Marana and Tucson on a re-read. I think this is an exceptionally marginal case, probably still just scrapes by. SportingFlyer T·C 03:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to merge (which will result in a redirect for anyone searching on the name). Several of the new sources are just blogs, but there is still enough info to add a mention in the wilderness area article. MB 20:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just to correct some misconceptions regarding GNIS and whether or not they are a reliable source for this type of Gazetteer information. All the following information is taken directly from the USGS website (emphasis added is mine):

The U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Public Law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government.

Decisions of the BGN were accepted as binding by all departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

It serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

The GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards.

The database holds the Federally recognized name of each feature and defines the feature location by state, county, USGS topographic map, and geographic coordinates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with three clicks, I was able to find five sources about recreation in and around this small hamlet, and added them to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness, as the grove is located in the Aravaipa Canyon Preserve, allowing for limited recreational use only. Sources [3] and [4] as well as those found by Bearian indicate that this is a site in a protected area where someone once had a cabin, but there is not evidence that this "is a populated place", nor that any of these sources are significant coverage. The added "The area around Parson's Grove" refers to this Preserve and Wilderness, where coverage of the recreation opportunities belongs. Parsons Grove is not a hamlet, and not every point mentioned in AllTrails or HikeArizona needs its own article. I have updated the page accordingly. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - based on Reywas92's arguments and edits, I am going along with a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Onel5969, why are you deliberately putting false information into the article? There is zero evidence that this "is a populated place", nor evidence that it should have the "Municipalities and communities" navbox, nor that it should be in the Populated places in Pinal County, Arizona category. WHO LIVES HERE? You said "as per source", I assume referring to the GNIS, but you are purposefully ignoring the fact that the GNIS also classifies former towns with "populated place"; see for example Cochran, Arizona [5], an actual ghost town about which we have useful sources. A single abandoned ranch is not a ghost town and the sources we have found with actual content do not support this version of the article. Another source I found is the 1986 National Gazetteer, which lists it as a "locale", the same as schools, malls, and mobile home parks, rather than "ppl". Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why are you removing sourced information is the better question. Please take a refresher course on WP:VER. The source clearly states it is a populated place. You, and other editors have been ignoring valid sourcing and !voting, based on assumptions and your own interpretation of the sources, rather than what those sources actually say. GNIS is the definitive source on places in the US, and is clear on the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true - I've done a lot of research into these places and whether they meet WP:GEOLAND, and improved the ones that do (or meet WP:GNG). GNIS is the definitive source on place names in the US - the GNIS does not in itself convey legal recognition in the same way incorporation would. The GNIS also hasn't been updated all that much since 1984, so I would hardly say it's definitive. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So are are you telling me the infallible GNIS is correct that Cochran "is a populated place"? That people live right here because this database says so? GNIS standardizes uniform names, it doesn't mean every word and classification is 100% correct, up-to-date, and flawless in light of other sources, as I have shown elsewhere. So you're saying the USGS/BNG National Gazetteer (more recent actually) is the one that's wrong then? If you think someone lives within the access-restricted Aravaipa Canyon Preserve just because this database has this classified wrong, that a couple abandoned buildings make a "populated place", one that needs its own page here, I cannot believe you are editing in good faith. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the GNIS source it's not impossible people once lived there, in which case it would satisfy WP:GEOLAND #1, but we've got nothing showing that's the case at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 21 December 2019 (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.