Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arizona. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arizona|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arizona. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Arizona

Duncan McCormick

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Currently the only sources in the article are primary to the teams the subject played for, and all I could find elsewhere was a couple of paragraphs at [[1]], which isn't enough for the relevant notability standards to be met IMO. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Arizona, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most I found was this piece. Fails WP:GNG and SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ritter

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

Craig Ritter is a lineman never played a down of NFL football, and he barely played much of any other professional football. He played in five games in the 1995 CFL season for the Memphis Mad Dogs, per another source, and was briefly a starter on their O-line, and he played arena football. But there's no significant coverage of him at all—and I scoured the Orange County, Phoenix, Memphis, and other papers for it. That's a WP:GNG failure. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Arizona, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My searches have not so far turned up any SIGCOV. The commonness of the name makes searching difficult. Aside from playing at Arizona State (1991-92) and pro (1995-98), I also found references to a Craig Ritter being a football coach at Defiance College c. 2009 -- may or may not be the same person. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I'm finding right now are transactional announcements and brief mentions like [[2]]. Unless someone else can find some WP:SIGCOV, this is probably a delete. Let'srun (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the article has been significantly expanded since the nomination. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there now sources that can be considered SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca, Arizona

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

This one is a mess not in the least because it's not clear that the ghosttowns.com entry is talking about the same place, but according to this story the place came into being as a failed attempt by the local reservation to create a vacation spot. I'm not sure that it all there is to it, as it shows up on the map before that timeframe, but at any rate it is absolutely not a populated place now. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Seneca Lake Recreation Complex with the artificial Seneca Lake on Cienega Creek that flows down Mule Hoof Canyon is indeed where this is. But it is not Cienega Creek; this one rather being a minor tributary of the Salt River. The construction of the complex on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in the 1970s required the production of OCLC 21683618 before it could be signed off.
The ghosttowns page implies that Seneca "ghost town" was part of the asbestos mining in Arizona; and hdl:10150/629706 confirms the existence of a tiny Seneca Mining Company in the 1950s, although other Bureau of Mines publications such as OCLC 1990345 indicate that Accident Group of Globe was the major asbestos mining company there.
In the 1980s GNIS, Seneca at 33°45′24″N 110°30′44″W / 33.75667°N 110.51222°W / 33.75667; -110.51222 (Seneca) was a "locale" not a "ppl". So this is another "unincorporated community" lie that is not really fixable as it isn't the real subject anywhere. asbestos mining in Arizona is a missing subject, but this would be a totally ridiculous way to start it.
Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may also fail WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per Uncle G; not a community in the sense required by GEOLAND and not a reasonable redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have done work on the article and added sources to establish notability and remedy the obvious problems which led to the nomination, work still in progress.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage to meet the minimum required by WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review changes made since this article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not convinced that the extra material shows that this was anything more than a commercial center without residents, but it is certainly better than it was. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm genuinely conflicted on the best path forward. My reading of the sources is that this was never a community in the sense required by GEOLAND and so the current title is inappropriate, but the current sourcing is enough to support at least a few lines somewhere. I do not favor retaining this as a separate article but wouldn't object to a Merge to San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation or another appropriate place. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I continue to add content as time permits. Diff for edits done today: [3]. People definitely used to live here. The resort development is such a sad story, it seems clear from the beginning this could not work -- the lake is too small, there was no power to the site, the amount of traffic couldn't support it, etc. One of so many poor attempts to help Native American tribes with the difficult terrain they've been left with.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like there are other entries for ghosttowns in Gila County Arzona [4]. Maybe can be rediected to there. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job turning this article around...the new sources are enough for notability in my opinion. Had they all been from a narrow date range I might think differently, but with mentions in media up to 2016, coverage seems to have been persistent and significant. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would agree that we have enough to have an article, but I have to object to its characterization as an "unincorporated community", as there's no suggestion that anyone ever lived here. Can someone suggest something more accurate? I would go with "commercial center" except that's almost as much a euphemism for "not really a town" as "community" is for "town". Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, people did live here. See obits [5], [6], [7]. It seems the cabins that were there in the 1950s were residences for asbestos workers and their families, that's why people were being born there. I've stayed with "unincorporated community" for the time being as I improve it for the lack of any better idea.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Proposed deletions