Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heesham

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heesham

Heesham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Originator has removed prod tag and provided some explanation, so forwarding to AfD. Please review the article's talk page for some of the activity and discussion that's already occurred. I'd like to add: if this town actually exists, since there doesn't appear to be any reference or record of it ANYWHERE online, I would ask about its specific location-- for example, how does one get there? What streets pass through it? How does one know when one is there? Even if the place does actually exist, it seems as though it would fail any notability test. (Also please note that, for some unexplained reason, the originator reverted Ssbohio's proper edit to rename the article Heesham, Arizona to conform to Wikipedia naming conventions.) Proofreader J-Man 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm assuming good faith on the comments of those who are contesting the prod (including the one person who claims to live there), but the fact that this is returning absolutely zero GHits or census results has me believing that it's truly not a notable town at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - so it once was a town, but isn't anymore, and now is part of another town instead. So what? --Haemo 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V outright. Nothing, nada, zilch on Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is good material that could be referenced elsewhere, but not needing an actual article. DDB 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All localities, past and present are notable, especially one that was chartered. Needs sourcing and as an old town, this may not be on the web but that does not mean it can't be found. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All real localities are entitled to an article by precedent. Are you sure this one is real? Why? --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment No, but not everything can be found on Google. Tag as unreferenced and wait a while to see if can be sourced. If it can't be after a reasonable period, I would then support its deletion. Is there any reason to suspect a hoax? -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it. I am the creator of it. I don't really care anymore. --LtWinters 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of sources. If this town had really existed in the 1930s and 1940s, I would have expected local history buffs in the Tucson area to take notice, not to mention that there would have been governmental records of its incorporation and disincorporation. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete because the creator himself wants it to be removed.--Kylohk 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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.