Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Acres Mobile Home Resort, 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.  Sandstein  06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Arizona Acres Mobile Home Resort, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is not automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment USGS designation is NOT legal recognition of the place. Legal recognition means that a law has been passed creating a place (a village, city, town, etc.) Just being in the UGGS database is not legal recognition.  By that logic, every individual street that exists on a government map would be a legally recognized populated place.  The USGS definition of a populated place is "a named community with a permanent human population, usually not incorporated and with no legal boundaries, ranging from rural clustered buildings to large cities and every size in between; includes metropolitan areas, housing subdivisions, developments, modular home communities, and named neighborhoods (village, town, settlement, hamlet, trailer park, etc.). The boundaries of most communities classified as Populated Place are subjective and cannot be determined."  Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places fall into two categories: legally recognized which are presumed notable and legally unrecognized which which require coverage in reliable independent source.  It goes on to give examples of such areas as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc."  This trailer park clearly is in the latter.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, that's incorrect. USGS is a legal entity of the US Government, which recognizes the existence of the populated place. Your comment regarding streets is patently absurd. On the list of USGS definitions, can you point out where what you purport is the case? (Here's a hint, it doesn't: USGS Definitions). What you state above would fall under WP:OR, since it is your interpretation of what would constitute a "legal recognition". Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the USGS is a legal entity of the US Government. It maintains a database of place names which pretty much includes any name ever used on a map in the US.  Existence in this database does not constitute legal recognition.  My analogy to street names is not absurd.  Every city (also a legal entity) maintains a database of streets within its boundaries.  All those streets are not "legally recognized populated places" even though they are officially (by a government entity) recognized. You are claiming that since the USGS is a legal entity, any name it lists in a database is "legally recognized".  This quote " 'Legally recognized' means there is a law that recognizes it. Post offices, maps, etc. have nothing to do with it." is from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_2 and I certainly agree with it.MB 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - but the USGS is the legal entity tasked with categorizing geological features. City databases are not.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park on mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and my own standards. I can't verify that this subdivision has even two homes in it. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- non notable sub development. Sufficient RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * delete it's a subdivision not an official location. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.