Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity, Idaho

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!} 23:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unity, Idaho

[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)

Fails WP:NPLACE, There is a irrigation center, and a handful of houses, but nothing noteworthy about this "community". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there was never a community named Unity in the area, why was it on listed on maps? However, you are correct in that there is not much left now of the former community. An Errant Knight (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to introduce you to WP:GNIS so that you may become acquainted with the variety of things (mis)labelled on the maps. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- This source states that Unity was a populated place.
- This source calls it a "community".
- The county recognizes Unity as a voting precinct. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete The references to Unity as a precinct are clarified by the actual map, which shows that the spot labelled "Unity" on the topos is very much smaller area than the precinct as a whole (it's in the lower left corner of the little stub piece sticking out at the top, just south of the river). Its extent also explains the otherwise questionably large population figure, which is for the whole precinct and not just that small corner of it. "Community" I must dismiss as a more or less vacuous term. By contrast, what the topos make clear is that this was (and seemingly still is) a rail spot, for they show a siding and some largish buildings as well as several smaller ones in a small cluster. As for text, almost everything I found related to an electrical substation here. I'm just not seeing the evidence that there was a settlement at this point. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems that Frisfron has added sources about Unity's past, which has got me believing this was at least a somewhat community in the past. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep - it seems that Frisfrom has completely revamped the article, which I can absolutely confirm that this community was absolutely a noteworthy one. I'm thinking of withdrawing the nomitation. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't withdraw the nomination, because another editor has voted to delete. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:HEY. Djflem (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think a thorough WP:BEFORE search was done prior to the nominator nominating this article for deletion because there are multiple books which talk about this town's founding, in 1907 and 1908. Multiple sources announced the creation of this community, and there is significant coverage. I was able to revamp this article, adding sourcing, although much more work could be done. This community is covered in newspaper archives from at least a dozen newspapers, and it continues to receive some coverage, at least in obits, which refer to it as a community. I feel like I only scratched the surface with the sourcing; there are additional sources at the Library of Congress. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:06, 12 May 2025 (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.