Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumner Hill, California


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sumner Hill, California

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Declined PROD. Like Indian Lakes Estates, below, this is just a subdivision. The user who removed the PROD added a few news articles as references, but these are trivial coverage of routine legal matters. Informal settlements like subdivisions are subject to WP:GNG, which is not met in this case because of the lack of significant secondary coverage. This is just a WP:MILL housing tract like any other in the western world; it's on WP simply because a) it had a GNIS entry for some reason, and b) the prolific mass-article-creator Carlossuarez46 had internet access. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. The Sumner Hill community's legal battle against encroaching development went on for six years, reaching appellate court and resulting in a $3.2 million jury award to the homeowners. As a result, there was WP:SUSTAINED coverage about the community over a period of time, which I would hardly call a "routine legal matter". Cielquiparle (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: if the $3.2M lawsuit were a precedent-setting case, it would deserve its own article. But it isn't, leaving the subdivision to fend for itself in terms of notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On that basis, the subsequent $25 million lawsuit that the Rio Mesa developers won against Fidelity National Title Insurance is arguably "precedent-setting" per the 2016 Fresno Bee article: "It effectively says to the title company industry to be more careful what they do and that California insurance laws are very strict and are designed to protect." But anyway the lawsuits' precedent-setting isn't what's in question here. It's whether Sumner Hill, California, actually exists and is "notable" as verified by significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. And the answer to that is yes on the basis of the sources that are already in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But @OwenX, thanks for reading and for raising the question which certainly is interesting. I've added the point about constitutional protection of public access to navigable waters, where the appeals court actually ruled against the Sumner Hill homeowners – notable enough for the discussion to be cited in Stanford Environmental Law Journal. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no question Sumner Hill exists. What we are debating here is notability. If the $25 million case was a precedent-setting one, I'd love to see a separate article about it. As for the notability of Sumner Hill, I have yet to see coverage that suggests notability. But I'd be happy to hear what other editors think about this. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @OwenX There's more in the article than just about the lawsuit though. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know there is, but as I said, I don't find any of it to meet our notability standards. Right now, it's not even mentioned in Madera County, California. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is now. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what that changes. The article about the county, in existence on WP for 21 years, never mentioned the subdivision until you rushed over to add the link, in an attempt to defend the page about Sumner Hill in an AfD. My point was not that we can't have a page about Sumner Hill because it's not mentioned in Madera County, California. It's that despite having links to five other unincorporated communities, until you did so yesterday, no one even thought of mentioning Sumner Hill there. In the end, mentions on WP do not establish notability. Notability must be established by independent, reliable third-party sources, and so far, we haven't seen those. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Easily meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which have been added to the article. These include multiple focused articles in the Fresno Bee over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, starting in 1985 when the Sumner Hill subdivision was created at Peck Ranch. Yes, per WP:GEOLAND, subdivisions are not inherently notable...but the subsequent legal dispute between the Sumner Hill homeowners and the Rio Mesa developers over access to the San Joaquin River generated sustained media coverage over nine years, such as the 2007 "Tempers roiling on the river"; the 2008 article "River subdivision residents keep trails out"; and the 2012 "Homeowners win case on river access". The 2012 article in The Recorder published by American Lawyer Media provides an in-depth summary and analysis of the appeals court ruling, including key points on the history of the Sumner Hill development and dispute. (The 2012 ruling is also cited in the 2017 Stanford Environmental Law Journal and in the West Virginia Law Review, suggesting that the case has implications in other contexts, including issues related to constitutional protection of public access to coastal waterways.) Far from being ignored by the County of Madera, Sumner Hill has often been upheld as a "prominent development" within the county's broader plans for the "Rio Mesa" area, as explained in the 2012 Business Journal article and others. All in all, compared to the other Madera County stubs recently under review, this one is actually worth keeping; understand that private gated communities are not popular, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary! Private gated communities are extremely popular, as witnessed by their increasing prevalence. I am a big fan myself - used to live in one until a few years ago. However, I do not let my personal preferences bias my actions when editing a neutral point of view encyclopedia.
 * Notability criteria have nothing to do with whether or not we like the subject matter. Wikipedia has articles about some of the nastiest people and organizations in history. The difference is that those people and organizations are extensively covered by non-primary sources, thereby establishing their notability. Almost all the sources you provided have to do with two non-notable court cases, and the rest are local publications of limited value as a secondary source.
 * Pardon me for asking, but are you in any way connected to the subdivision or the court cases? If so, you must disclose it per WP:DCOI. Owen&times;  &#9742;  21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I never heard of this place until I did the research. I disagree with your assertion of non-notability which seems entirely subjective. But we can agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG per Cielquiparle's research and expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG per HEY research and expansion. Djflem (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and kudos to Cielquiparle for the in-depth research. The sources show there is significant coverage of this place in multiple reliable sources. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:06, 5 December 2023 (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.