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 per sourcing identified. Normally I'd relist for source assessment to see if any of the deletes changed, but these sources are an objective answer to the nomination and many of those !votes StarMississippi 23:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It's a well. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1986 GNIS record for this actually gave it the feature class "well" and said that it was "UNOFF". Unfortunately, feature classes have become eroded over the years. And here we are declaring that a well "passes GEOLAND" for being an "unincorporated area" (piped as "populated place") 37 years later. The extra saddening thing, over the fact that we are still so uncritical of the GNIS that a well that even says "Well" in its name, is taken to be where people live, is that the coördinates for this in the GNIS are for the words "Queens Well" printed at the bottom left of the quadrangle map. It is the Queens Well quadrangle map. The actual location of the well on the map, where it says Queen's Well, is at 32°16′35″N111°38′05″W / 32.276514°N 111.634689°W / 32.276514; -111.634689, with (on the 1:62500 maps) a handy stylized icon of a well to confirm that, as the GNIS used to say, it is a well. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a physical well, anymore than Indian Wells, California is a collection of wells made by a group of native Americans. "Wells" itself is a pretty common name for geographic areas: please see Wells. — Maile (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Ironically, one can even see it, at the coördinates given above. It's the round thing, exactly where the well symbol and the words "Queens Well" on the topographic maps say it is, at the end of the little service road. The maps say it's a well. The GNIS said that it was a "well" up until "well" was squashed and mass replaced (incorrectly) a few years ago. We can see that it's a well. It's mind-boggling that people want to argue that no, it isn't a well and it could be a populated place. We've got the evidence of the very computer database record that the article is based upon outright saying that it is a well for a good 30 years. Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a well. The name says it's a well. The GNIS says it's a well. The USGS topographic map says it's a well. The satellite image: [1] shows a well, or possibly a cistern, surrounded by desert. Look at the image. Do you see any sign of human population? This shouldn't be this difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete A person can always argue / assume that not enough searching has been done and that the needed sources have been overlooked. The burden of proof that this well is either a populated place or otherwise notable lies on the person arguing for it. Just because it might be notable does not make a feature notable. If sources showing that can't be found, it does not belong in Wikipedia until an acceptable source showing notability is found.
I found two sources for Queen's Well, but neither shows that it is notable in any way. First on page 15 of McKenzie, D.N., (1985, RangeWater Pumping Systems State-of-The-Art-Review. Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201, 2200-Range, San Dimas, California.) the caption of a water well picture reads, Figure 22. - Large maximum power controller pump jack water pumping system at Queens Well on the Papago Indian Reservation near Tuscon, Arizona. Finally, in Carlson, K.E., (1978. Laramie, Wyo.; Kent A. Crofts, Colorado Yampa Coal. Annual Report) there are three pictures of water pumping system at Queens Well on page 45 and two other page. None of these sources indicate any significance for Queens Wells. It is just an example of a water well run by solar panels as many wells are. Paul H. (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bravo! I was stumped by this. (And your first hyperlink does not work for me.) Partly because I suspect the proper name is not searchable. "Queen's Well" was "UNOFF" and probably owned by a company or person named Queen. Down the road is "Tank 113" and, from the other "tanks" dotted around, I suspect that the proper official name for this thing under which it is documented is going to be something hugely mundane like "Papago well 37—05" for example. There were once wells elsewhere named Papago Farms well #1 to well #7, certainly. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here to indicate this is or has ever been a populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Let'srun (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is literally a well, and in fact, it may border on a WP:HOAX to claim it's anything more than a well. Kinopikotalk 20:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad-faith hoax. This article was created in 2017, relying solely upon GNIS as a source for the "populated place" requirement. Whether that practice was acceptable was debated prior to 2021, but an 2021 RfC found affirmative consensus that GNIS by itself is not enough to count as a legal recognition the populated place requirement.
So, judging from currently clear standards, it is IMO patently clear that this does not meet the populated places requirement and be deleted. But a hoax requires a bad-faith intention to trick the audience in believing that something is real. I don't find it to be the case here, as the article's creation was more due to laxer standards before that had no clear consensus on whether GNIS is enough by itself, allowing stubs such as this to be created. VickKiang(talk) 02:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember when the WWW interface actually changed, but the USGS says that it squashed the "well" and other feature codes such as "post office" in 2021. It would have upfront said "well" in 2017. Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is no indication that this site is a populated place, and the 2021 RfC I mentioned above notes that The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. As such, GEOLAND is failed and this should be deleted. VickKiang(talk) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On Wikipedia, one thing I learned we can do, is look for sources! Queens Well, this exact location, was described as a "village of 15 homes" by the Tuscon Citizen in 1993[2], and a Papago village with solar equipment constructed in 1982[3] (Edit to add: another 1982 mention[4]), and an "outlying Indian village" in which 3 homes were destroyed in a flood in 1962 where the "Red Cross is feeing and clothing all the residents of Queens Well."[5] Surely these are poor native americans without the favor of white skin so that the US Government sees them, but it does seem to be a populated place.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but SIGCOV is needed for GNG and passing SNG alone does not pass GNG if the sources were exhausted. That's what people said on Talk:Notability recently. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what people said on Notability recently, but we have editors concluding this article is a "hoax", when searching newspapers.com with my free wiki editor account yielded a number of hits. The primary ground for the delete votes to date is that they don't think its a populated place, and that assumption has been shown to be incorrect. I believe the nomination was completely in good faith, but incorrect.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
surprisingly, keep The well and the settlement are two different locations and labels on the topo maps: the latter is about 2/3s of a mile south of the former. The settlement label is not as well placed as it could be, but there is a clear line of structures just to the east. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a few sources that show this is a populated and notable area in the Tohono O’odham Nation (formerly known as the Papago Indian Reservation). Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 06:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not see "Queen's Well" anywhere in the source you added... बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the section of the web page titled Schuk Toak District. It's a little hidden but it's there. They elected Katrina Lopez this year. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 06:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found it so I change to Keep. बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2023 (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.