Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Junction Windmill, 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 delete all. As noted in some of the comments, there is a risk that this type of multiple nomination will be rejected as not having sufficiently similar articles to judge them all together. However, the consensus in this case is that they are similar in the relevant points, in particular that they share similarly flawed sourcing based on apparent GNIS errors. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Road Junction Windmill, Arizona[edit]

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

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

[1] Also nominating

These are or were literally just small windmills. They are not towns, not villages, and certainly not "populated places" as these mass-produced articles incorrectly state. The Walker Place is still the site of a ranch house and a couple sheds, but the others are abandoned sites. A thorough search of Google News and Books yields no results for any of these, other than the USGS/BGN 1986 National Gazetteer which correctly lists them as locales ("Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)."), in contrast to their 1980 entries in the GNIS. There is no evidence of notability for these and they do not pass WP:NGEO. Reywas92^Talk 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all there's a problem with the nomination as not all of these were windmills - Cedar Mill was a mine near Humboldt, Arizona and Chilean Mill was near Prescott (they tried to move the mill to a museum in the 1960s, and "Chilean Mill" appears to be something akin to a brand name as a "Chilean mill" is a machine.) There's a chance Cedar mill passes WP:GNG or at least should be added to the Humboldt article. Will do that now. None of the other articles came up as search terms. Doing some original research on "Road Junction Windmill" is literally just a windmill at the junction of two dirt roads deep in the Arizona wilderness. None of these appear to actually be towns. SportingFlyer T·C 06:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The satellite image for Cedar Mill's coordinates does show a windmill and its shadow, though a mine can be in the area as well. Reywas92^Talk 08:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arnold Mesa topo map for Cedars Mill (windmill) shows it was a windmill like the others, no indication of a mine.MB 22:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Minnehaha topo map shows that "Chilean Mill" was NOT a windmill. The symbol here is a small solid border square which means "Miscellaneous Structures - Ruins" per the legend. Perhaps there was once a "Chilean Mill" (the mining mill which ground rock into powder) there which gave the place its name. Regardless, not a populated place nor otherwise notable. MB 22:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is a malformed multiple AfD, and each of these entries should have been discussed individually. 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} 06:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- You have yet to establish that anyone lives in these places. Your writing the statement that "Rush Place Windmill is a populated place" is an irresponsible falsehood. Your mass-production of non-notable sub-stubs with no hope for expansion was malformed. The GNIS is not infallible nor a conferer of notability to abandoned windmills. Are you saying the US Geologic Survey and the Board of Geographic Names were wrong when they classified these as locales in the actual gazetteer? Reywas92^Talk 08:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I normally do not like a long list of topics for AfD but this was the right call by the nominator Reywas92. It saves editor time and energy. In order to pass WP:GEOLAND these need to be legally recognized places not neighborhoods or census tracts, or unincorporated areas. Failing the GEOLAND SNG the topics would need to pass WP:GNG and they do not. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None are populated places nor otherwise notable for GEOLAND#2. I looked at several of these on the relevant topo map and what you see is the name and a little windmill symbol. The map legend says this symbol indicates "Miscellaneous Structures - Windmill". Miscellaneous structures are not populated places under GEOLAND. Obvious categorization mistakes in the GNIS should not be propagated into WP. MB 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per WP:MULTIAFD, this multiple nomination does not appear to meet those criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Evidentially not populated places, the articles are currently perpetuating factual errors. There are no criteria precluding the nomination of multiple similar articles all derived from the same single erroneous source.----Pontificalibus 12:06, 26 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.