Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonderry (CDP), New Hampshire


 * 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. —  The Earwig   talk 01:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Londonderry (CDP), New Hampshire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I see in WP:GEOLAND that census tracts are usually not considered notable, and this seems like that. I don't normally work in this area, though, so I'm nominating rather than prodding to make sure this has eyes. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm pretty sure census-designated places are different than census tracts, so I think this would meet GEOLAND. Hog Farm Bacon 01:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm, I'm not entirely sure about the distinction. What does seem fairly clear, though, is that this is an entity that exists only for statistical purposes and does not have any political or cultural recognition as a distinct place (my guess would be that 99% of the residents of Londonderry wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not they live within the CDP). Given that, I'd need to see some case for why this needs to be a standalone article before I'd consider withdrawing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This explains the difference pretty well. Essentially, a CDP is a community recognized by the US Census Bureau as being a center of population and I would say CDPs have the legal recognition to meet "legally recognized populated place".  A census tract is a block division of a county that is not based on a community.  So the Census Bureau views CDPs as individual communities, but census tracts are just for statistical purposes and are not viewed as a community.  So my opinion is that CDPs meet GEOLAND, although since there's no clear-cut consensus on what counts as a "legally recognized populated place", others may disagree with me. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Census-designated place defines them as a concentration of population defined by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes only; the "statistical purposes only" definitely gives me pause, but I'm curious to hear from others. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , In the area, there are lots of 'neighborhoods' that are well known. Pinardville in Goffstown/Manchester would be the equivalent. Just the CDP for Londonderry is the exact same name. See some other comments below where they voted keep. ~RAM (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * comment A CDP usually means a place that does not have legally designated boundaries but which can be identified as a distinct place. The typical case in these parts is an unincorporated town, but in New Hampshire, a "town" is a political subunit which can encompass several settlements. That seems to be the case here: I think the coordinates are slightly off, as GMaps shows the label a bit to the NNW, but there is a distinct settlement there. I am not familiar with how this is handled in similar cases, but I personally do not think that CDPs per se are notable; it is the place they embody which is of note. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looking at past AFDs of CDPs you've got Articles for deletion/Skyland Estates, Virginia (no consensus, 2020), Articles for deletion/Damariscotta-Newcastle, Maine (keep, 2006), Articles for deletion/Bull Run Mountain Estates, Virginia (keep, 2020), Articles for deletion/Winterport (CDP), Maine (redirect, 2007, since split back into its own article), Articles for deletion/Muhlenberg Park, Pennsylvania (no consensus, 2020), Articles for deletion/North Haven (CDP), Connecticut (delete, 2006), Articles for deletion/Searsport (CDP), Maine (no consensus, 2005). So I'm mistaken in my belief that there's a consensus that these things pass WP:GEOLAND.  Striking my previous !vote to do some research re GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of those that weren't kept were either duplicates of existing articles, questionable closes from many years ago that would not have been closed that way now, or, in the case of North Haven, not a CDP at all despite the title. There is clear consensus that actual CDPs that aren't duplicate articles are notable. That being said, under the circumstances I'm undecided if this meets the latter requirement. Smartyllama (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Londonderry, New Hampshire. After thinking this over, since the CDP is completely located within Londonderry, there's extremely little beyond census stats that can be said separately about the CDP. With no consensus that CDPs pass GEOLAND, I'd say the most logical thing to do here is merge some of the content into a new section about the CDP within the Londonderry article. Hog Farm Bacon 04:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to Londonderry, New Hampshire. New England is a bit weird that it has CDPs within incorporated towns, but that's because NH is entirely subdivided that way. There's a lot of these though, e.g. this is adjacent to Derry (CDP), New Hampshire within Derry, New Hampshire so it may be better to just keep these for consistency. Switch between the "Cities" (which includes CDPs) and "Towns" (which are New England towns) tabs here for illustration. Reywas92Talk 07:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. In general, CDPs are notable and deserve their own articles. Most CDPs in New Hampshire refer to the compact village centers within the larger New England town of the same name, and as such are clearly distinct entities and are unquestionably notable. Others, like East Merrimack, New Hampshire, and arguably this one, are in towns where suburban development has covered over any former compact settlement. We have, in fact, gone back and forth in New Hampshire over whether the CDPs should have their own articles. The decision several years ago was that all CDPs should have their own articles, because the alternative was to post the CDP statistics in the corresponding town article, which made those town articles a dense mass of statistics. The current setup (separate CDP articles) is an imperfect solution, but the best one to the nationwide norm of having articles for CDPs. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have the link to the most recent discussion, I'd be interested to check that out. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion, such at it was, was here. At the time, I was trying to preserve the single-article structure, but over time I was swayed by the argument that having the CDP statistics in the town article made the whole thing much less readable. --Ken Gallager (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * , My thought for the CDPs in NH would be that if the CDP has the same exact name as the town or city, it be included within the main article, otherwise, it should be separate. I think that would solve some of the confusion, I saw on the discussion re: Peterborough that was a part of the discussion. Just my 2 cents. ~RAM (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. As you saw, we did try that for several years. I came around to the viewpoint of the Peterborough commenter that doing so made for an overly-tangled and confusing article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a distinct neighborhood (satisfying GEO) as well as CDP.Djflem (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or merge?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal&#124;zukor (discuss) 10:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep instead of merge. The two articles maintain distinct, specific content in their Geography and Demographics sections, and I think merging the articles would make those sections messy and unclear. This article does a good job distinguishing itself from the township. ~EdGl talk 04:47, 26 January 2021 (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.