Deletion of Theba, Arizona

Comment: I realize that consensus has generally been that currently and formerly populated places are inherently notable, but |consensus can change, and in this case I hope it does. I'm a firm believer in the spirit, logic, and application of |general notability guidelines--the idea that we need secondary, independent sources to write an an encyclopedia article on something, and at least some of those sources should address the topic directly and detail. Without such sources, article writing becomes either an exercise in |synthesis, or you end up with a |collection of somewhat related facts with no context or interpretation to hold them together. And this is exactly what we have here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:GNG||WP:SYN||WP:IINFO)

Comment: previous consensus hasn't always been simply that populated places are inherently notable. For instance, rticles for deletion/Wheatland Center, New York|this AFD decided that so long as a place has a name, and that name has appeared in print, that location is notable forever after. No people, no buildings, no census data, no info? No problem
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: as there is no "longstanding consensus is that all populated places are notable" - this argument is just another slant on . Notability requires |verifiable evidence; without it, the article will only fail Wikipedia's CAT:CONTENT|content policies. In any case, you can't write an encylopedic article on thin air - you need coverage from reliable secondary sources. This stub has no coverage, other than thin air (which must be thin at 728 feet above sea level
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IKNOWIT||WP:NRVE)