Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forepaugh, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forepaugh, 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)

Topos show a rail siding here, not a settlement, so not a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was more than a rail siding. It appears the location on the train tracks used to be a settlement and is now a ghost town (see photos of abandoned buildings here, and may also be independently notable as the site of a WWII training airfield [1]. Furthermore, a quick look at Google satellite and street view today shows multiple currently inhabited homes and RVs south of the rail siding, in a community that appears to identify itself as Forepaugh (as evidenced by the Friends of Forepaugh adopt-a-highway sign on the way in). The fact that the place name appears on a sign beyond just a street name puts it a category above other western rail sidings that were never anything more. Highway 89 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gets numerous mentions in the 1910s through 1960s, such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, which shows that there was a post there, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, showing it was still a populated area through the 1950s, this, another indication of the WWII airfield, this, this, showing the airstrip was still in operation during the 1960s, and this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 10 March 2023 (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.