Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaisdell, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaisdell, Arizona

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It's still a rail spot, now the location of a spur running to a TOFC (Tanks On Flat Cars) ramp for the Yuma Proving Ground. Earlier it was another station/siding, but even the sources in the article don't claim it to be a town, and I could find nothing else showing that either. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with its own post office, easy keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A post office is not a town. There were thousands which existed in isolated rail stations or even in people's homes. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this was anything more than a rail stop. If there was anything else here, there's not enough coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:GEOLAND. Without a reliable source which says that the subject (a populated place) exists, we can't have an article on it. Even if it is/was a populated place GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places and there isn't any evidence of legal recognition. The existence of a post office doesn't mean it was a populated place and doesn't constitute evidence of legal recognition. I can find mentions of it as a railroad structure (e.g. [1] says there was a railroad siding there) but nothing better. Hut 8.5 13:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of evidence this was more than a rail siding. MB

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.