Tahchee, Arizona: Satellite views show what appears to be a cluster of ranching-type buildings, and topos do not show the name prior to 2011.  – dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona .  – dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This appears to be part of the community of Blue Gap/Tachee, one of the 110 chapters of the Navajo Nation [21] .  See also this Navajo Times article.  [22] It's not the same exact community as Blue Gap, because in 1954, there was a school established at Tah Chee *and* a school at Blue Gap, that apparently later merged [23] .  There are some historical notes about Tah Chee in A Diné History of Navajoland [24] .  It's cited as a mission station (again separately from Blue Gap) of the Annunciation Indian Mission in the 1958 official Catholic directory.  [25] And a 1985 article in Ethnic Forum notes that "Tah Chee" and "Tahchee" are variant spellings of the same name. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 01:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the 1961 Navajo Yearbook the school at Tahchee had 25 students.  [26] Robert Franklin Leslie visits circa 1967 and the "ancient" settlement has been abandoned by still nomadic Navajo herders.  More discussion of Tah-chee in this book [27] , where circa the early 21st century it's being used as a summer settlement camp.  [28] Jahaza ( talk ) 02:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning delete We really need a better way of handling the Navajo chapters than co-opting towns for them, because that's not what they are; they're more on the county level of governmental organization.  As far as this specific spot is concerned, first, state road maps are a terrible source for GNIS.  Looking through the aerials and topos, yes, there are buildings here, but they don't obviously interpret as something more than a ranch.  Which takes me to the textual sources, where first of all we have the issue of disentangling the chapter from the possible settlement.  And conversely, picking this point out as the central point of the chapter is not clear either, not when we are looking at potentially tens of thousands of acres.  If we had something that strongly tied this point to the chapter facilities, I'd be likely to go for a "keep" result, but as it is I'm having trouble tying it all together.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment appears to be one of the communities affected by the uranium mine: [29] Elinruby ( talk ) 04:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:29, 18 April 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus