Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Falls Crossing, 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. The sources Pontificalibus gave are enough to keep the article, but the move discussion should go in the talk. (non-admin closure) ミラP 22:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falls Crossing, Arizona

Black Falls Crossing, 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 river crossing is or was ever a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if it weren't actually a locale, there's nothing establishing notability. There's scores more of these, we can do a batch soon. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass our sng or gng. Here are some photos. And a map Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is a named crossing of the Little Colorado River. Redirect there where it is mentioned as a one of two historic crossing points. The road to the west is "Wukoki to Black Falls Crossing Road" and to the east it is either BIA 6730 or 6735 depending on the map. But the crossing is not any kind of populated place. See also this and this for further confirmation. MB 00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think Black Falls could be notable as a named feature for which more than statistics exist, and there's newspaper reports calling it an area where people live such as [1], and [2] calls Black Falls a "trading post" confirmed by [3], and [4] seems to discuss the falls significantly. Also a lot of other articles out there about people who used the ford throughout history, like the "Mormon Trek." So this could technically pass both GEOLAND and the "named natural feature" test, but it would have to be renamed just to Black Falls, Arizona. SportingFlyer T·C 04:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unsure about this one. More research is needed. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this has been merely empty space, uninhabited ordinary land. This article indicates it is merely a waterfall, albeit in one ranger's opinion the most beautiful in the area. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but the article describing a 100-foot drop from a 300-foot-wide precipice seems more consistent with the nearby Grand Falls, Arizona. None of the other sources seem to describe Black Falls as anything more than a large riffle. –dlthewave ☎ 20:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per MB and Sporting Flyer it is a historic crossing and discussed in the article for Little Colorado River so it would make sense to direct there. Dartslilly (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Black Falls Crossing is a natural geographic feature that passes GNG ([5], [6], [7], [8] etc) Black Falls Trading Post was a populated place located there that also passes GNG ([9], [10], [11], [12] etc). See also Table 6.10 here entitled "sites associated with Black Falls Crossing"). Additionally, according to this a fort was erected at Black Falls in 1868. A strategically (noted by early settlers [13], [14]) and geologically important site supported by multiple sources. This could be a feature-class article if people can get complete access to on- and offline sources. If that's not enough there's whole bunch of stuff on Uranium mining and the Navajo people#Community involvement and response concerning the Black Falls community. People do currently live there e.g. [15]: "Yazzie's home is atop a yellow hill in the rolling spread near Black Falls, a wide riffle in the Little Colorado River when it's running" and "the Navajo People of the remote community of Black Falls Arizona was awarded a $20,000 Environmental Justice Grant to address uranium-polluted drinking water sources". ----Pontificalibus 13:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment above and Pontificalibus. May need some cleanup and maybe a page move. SportingFlyer T·C 14:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A page move to "Black Falls, Arizona" or "Black Falls Trading Post, Arizona" seems appropriate given the new sources. we should exercise caution with sources that simply use Black Falls as a landmark (the wagon party that camped near Black Falls, the fort that was between Black Falls and Grand Falls, someone who lived on a hill near Black Falls) but there seem to be plenty of useful sources even if we disregard these. –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems “Black Falls” has long been used to refer to an informal area around the crossing. It probably makes sense to have the article primarily about the geographic feature, and then include sections on the trading post, the fort, the current community, and other human uses associated with it. That way anyone trying to find out about Black Falls, Arizona will hopefully find what they want in one article. The title can be changed in due course if necessary.—--Pontificalibus 21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is something notable on it or something of historical significance happened there, listing a place does not make it notable. PenulisHantu (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by Pontificalibus. A page move is probably in order, but there certainly seems to be quite a bit of coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pontificalibus Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:22, 27 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.