Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiricahua, 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 no consensus. Per procedural keep arguments.  MBisanz  talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Chiricahua, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Next stop on the tour of Arizona non-places is this siding. Yes, that's all it is: a siding on a rail line which was abandoned sometime in the 1980s, if one believes the topos. GMaps actually has a good clue: the remains of a pond a bit to the east which it labels "Chiricahua Siding Tank", presumably to supply water back in the steam era. It's obvious there was never a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pseudo-settlements in Cochise County, Arizona which also represent former sidings on rail lines:

Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   Bait30   Talk? 03:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete A check of newpapers.com does not show evidence of these being notable communities beyond a work camp like or siding as, except for Campstone: . I would encourage a List of stops of the Southern Pacific Railroad or similar to include mention without the need for separate pages. Reywas92Talk 08:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Forrest. Forrest had a Post Office.  I realize that there are differing opinions about the definition "Populated, legally recognized places" as per WP:GEOLAND.  I've been using the definition that if a location had a Post Office, then it was legally recognized.  If there is no disagreement about this, then perhaps "Arizona Place Names" could be searched as part of the WP:BEFORE process?  I appreciate Mangoe's efforts in cleaning up non-notable places, but I also want to minimize the amount of work.  If we don't agree that a Post Office indicate a "Populated, legally recognized place," the we should follow up on Wikipedia_talk:Notability (geographic_features). Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Stark. Stark had a Post Office. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Vanar. Vanar had a Post Office.  Many thanks to  Pontificalibus for their edits. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Forrest, Stark, Vanar per Cxbrx. Also keep Manzoro due to notable mine there. Campstone was the station serving Huachuca City, Arizona (source) so should redirect there. I suspect some of the others may have been settlements e.g. Chiricahua but it's difficult to search as some of the words have more common usages.Pontificalibus 09:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also keep Olga as this map (key) shows there were a number of dwellings located there.Pontificalibus  20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Olga. That is a nice looking map! I agree that Olga had what look to be dwellings.   However, it seems that Olga is not a "Populated, legally recognized place" as per WP:GEOLAND #1 - there are no citations for a Post Office or form of local government. I'm seeing [Results_of_Spirit_Leveling_in_Arizona_18 references to Olga Siding], so WP:STATION would apply. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition" says "any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources"  I don't think we have found the non-trivial coverage yet for Olga.    Perhaps Olga should be deleted? BTW - there is a List of places in Arizona that looks to be a dump of GNIS.  The Arizona list is far too long when compared with List of places in California.  And while I'm at it, most of the Arizona pages use https://arizona.hometownlocator.com as a source.  It looks to me like https://arizona.hometownlocator.com is an aggregator of GNIS and other public data and is not WP:RS.  Perhaps https://arizona.hometownlocator.com should be removed as a reference on these articles?  Comments anyone? Cxbrx (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is meant by ”legally recognized” is not clear. I’ve seen claims ranging from “must have its own government” through to “mustn’t be an illegal encampment”. However we tend to keep all named populated places that are more than simply isolated dwellings and not part of some other nearby settlement. This would suggest “legally recognized” means that the name should simply be used by government agencies etc. and has no bearing on the size of the settlement, with “populated place” meaning more than one household. So for example a farmstead named on an official map wouldn’t qualify, nor would a rail siding, but add in multiple houses to either and that is sufficient. As to the sourcing, yes these articles were created in batches relying only on GNIS, so this is part of going through them and deleting those lacking supporting evidence that they ever were populated places. ---Pontificalibus 06:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Manzoro as per WP:STATION. I'm not able to find a Post Office at Manzoro.  For example, 1906 railroad reference has Manzoro in italics, indicating that there was no Post Office at that time.  So, I don't think that Manzoro is a "Populated legally recognized place." Pontificalibus' citations and others indicate that Manzoro was a loading point for the mines, but I'm not sure if this is notable enough.  If the mines or mining district are notable, then they should have their own pages. Cxbrx (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Given the wide range of notabilities of these articles, a WP:MULTIAFD was inappropriate. Some of these are obviously notable, others obviously non-notable, many in between. There's too much here to analyze in one AfD. I will note, however, that having its own post office is absolutely not necessary to pass WP:NPLACE, though it is sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I commented on another discussion, having a post office is not sufficient evidence of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can reach a consensus about this, please comment in Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Cxbrx (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep per Smartyllama.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2020 (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.