Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, 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)

Let me start by saying that the assertion of a population of 125 on the part of the CAB is completely implausible. Aerials only go back to 1960, but they show a vast, almost trackless wasteland, marked only by the railroad and its paralleling highway. The topos go back further and show Kim to be a passing siding and nothing more; the closest building is a long ways off to the northwest. There is just no chance in hell that this was an "unincorporated community". Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Undecided: as a formerly inhabited, named place (per USGS), this settlement passes GEOFEAT. SITH (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation is merely a topo quad which has nothing more on it than a name. This area is in fact so empty that there is a huge area marked as "unsurveyed", and that area isn't filled in that I can see until the 1965 edition, and there still are no buildings marked on the quad! In fact the 1927 map only has two places names, a couple of wells, some roads, and the railroad, besides a lot of contour lines. As proof of a populated place, this simply does not cut it; I would take it as proof of an unpopulated place. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, fair enough, I'm swayed enough to withdraw my !vote on this one for now by your explanation. Thanks, SITH (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna say Delete on this one. There's multiple sources in the article that only refer to Kim as a railroad station, and a small one at that. @Mangoe: - I actually suspect the 125 population may be a reference to Mohawk, Arizona, as the CAB report has Mohawk in parenthesis after Kim, and one of the other sources mentions that Kim was near Mohawk. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom, no evidence it ever was anything more that a location along the railroad. I found a 1937 newspaper article that said 25 years prior, 1000 feet of track was washed-out in Kim which delayed trains to Tucson. It was probably a passing siding as stated above. MB 02:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the county as a first choice per WP:ATD-R. Delete as second choice. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An examination of historic USGS topographic maps beginning with 1927 found a complete absence of any indications of structures or roads having ever been associated with Kim. I agree that it is likely an insignificant railroad siding that was never a populated place. Paul H. (talk) 20:28, 4 October 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.