Queens Well, Arizona : बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND .  Onel 5969 TT me 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  From WP:GEOLAND , 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″N 111°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 ] As a well , it may have legal recognition and a permanent population , namely of and by Nāgas , therefore it is still necessary to evaluate GEOLAND for that location.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 21:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Tohono Oʼodham are not known for living in wells.   ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 01:09, 11 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: [16] 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 ] It is above written: (And your first hyperlink does not work for me.) Try Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201 .  Google Books is always a problem for me in extracting permanent URLs.  Paul H. ( talk ) 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes from long years of experience years ago.  Uncle G ( talk ) 06:51, 12 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.  Kinopiko talk 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

Discussion outcome: keep