Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abra, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abra, Arizona

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; fails

WP:GEOLAND. This was never anything more than a railroad stop that has not existed in many years. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. This location is within the current community of Paulden, Arizona and has no independent notability (not even considered a Ghost town). MB 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) MB 22:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per
WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". The fact that it is also located within a CDP is irrelevant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:GEOLAND & One1. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment USGS designation is NOT legal recognition of the place. Legal recognition means that a law has been passed creating a place (a village, city, town, etc.) Just being in the UGGS database is not legal recognition. Yes, the USGS is a legal entity of the US Government. It maintains a database of place names which pretty much includes any name ever used on a map in the US. This quote " 'Legally recognized' means there is a law that recognizes it. Post offices, maps, etc. have nothing to do with it." is from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_2#Legal recognition and I certainly agree with it.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is your opinion, not a Wiki standard, or even a guideline. Legally recognized means recognized by a legal authority. Period. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is your opinion of what legally recognized means. I don't think that map names in a database meet the bar nor that every list created by every government agency denotes legal recognition. Following this would lead to many thousands of articles that could never be more than a stub, and is the reason why these do not survive AFD - as was just seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona and all the other ones that AFD mentioned as precedent. MB 13:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just fyi - the fact that an article might never rise beyond the status of a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a populated, legally recognized place, and per
WP:GEOLAND is far too broad, because it automatically justifies the existence of articles like this, and I don't see any information online that could ever expand this article beyond a stub - but that being said, until that standard is changed, this article is a keep. ArchieOof (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - this is a real, albeit it very small, rural community, as
rescued by me and others. This differs, say, from a small mobile home, housing complex or trailer park, to which we've deleted and that I've argued for their deletion as recently as today several times. This place appears to pass my standards and that of Carlossuarez46, an old hand at these matters. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see anything online about this. Can you give sources. I find one company in the area that uses ABRA in its name. I don't see anything that you refer to in news. I don't see anything on Google maps to indicate there was ever any kind of community there. There is still a railroad there, but not a junction, siding or any building. There are residences hundreds of yards away, but those are modern structures considered part of current community of Paulden. I believe the current population of Abra is zero, and probably always was. It seem to me that at some point, the railroad picked this name for this point along the track for some reason and that is all it ever was. I think the GNIS notion that is a "populated place" is a misnomer - probably it is a named place that doesn't fit into any other geographic category (lake, hill, etc.) and by default is listed as a "populated place". The only references I find are railroad related, as in "track realignments ... (Abra to Skull Valley)". I have found nothing to indicate it is a "real, albeit it very small, rural community". MB 05:20, 26 August 2016 (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.