Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corva, 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. Missvain (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corva, 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)

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Marked as a (site) on topo map. There was a Corva Cedar Products company placing ads in the paper, so they may have had operations there but I can't find evidence it was a populated place or had notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a recognised railroad station (which shut down in 1971). The place is still referred to by contemporary trainspotters. [1] SportingFlyer T·C 00:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no consensus at that all stations are notable and don't need to meet GNG. See Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations and Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 65#Train stations. Stations are not geographic feature, the only relevant part of GEOLAND would be as buildings which require sig cov. MB 05:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I added a source to the article showing people had moved into houses there, which gets it past our low populated place threshold. SportingFlyer T·C 06:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons cited in the previous batch AfD. It's cited in a book of Arizona place names, was used as a place name in 1974 according to this book, and was discussed as a real populated place in the several articles SportingFlyer mentioned in the other AfD. Unlike many of the other places recently nominated for deletion, there's every indication that this is a real populated place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corva, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the two previous comments. It already well passes the threshold. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a large batch of poorly BEFORE'd articles. It is a real and populated place, and passes WP:GEOLAND. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others above. Was a historic population center and still a big part of southwest rail history. Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2020 (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.