Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vine Hill-Pacheco, California (2nd nomination)


 * 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. czar 05:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Vine Hill-Pacheco, California
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Former census-designated places are generally not notable, this was superseded by the notable communities Pacheco, California and Vine Hill, California prior to the 2000 census. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - We've been pretty lax about CDPs, but there's no point in keeping a stub when there are well-developed articles about the two communities. –dlthewave ☎ 00:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Question: do CDPs not count for WP:GEOLAND crit 1? Curbon7 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. While most CDPs generally coincide with a notable community that would pass crit 1, they are really just statistical entities for the census to compile data. "In the past, communities were often combined as a single CDP in order to comply with the Census Bureau's former minimum population requirements. The Census Bureau's elimination of population threshold criteria starting with Census 2000 made such combinations unnecessary." The current CDP status of Pacheco and Vine Hill contributes to each of their individual notabilities – and the handful of remaining combined CDPs may also be notable as such – but the census having previously compiled their statistics together to have a larger population doesn't make that a separately notable entity by virtue of being a former CDP. There was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_5 last year that did not come to a conclusion. Looking through the new CDPs for the 2020 census (there's a PDF somewhere, and tigerweb is a good resource), a fair number are merely small subdivisions/housing developments like Renaissance at Monroe. This contravenes the census's CDP criteria that "Some CDPs, however, may be predominantly residential; such places should represent recognizably distinct, locally known communities, but not typical suburban subdivisions" and I would dispute these places being automatically notable either (New Jersey in particular disregarded this rule when they made their list). Reywas92Talk 01:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * CDPs have usually been kept at AfD, but I would dispute any "legally recognized" status since they're really just used as a tool to group people for census purposes. In this case Pacheco and Vine Hill are separate communities with their own histories and the former combined CDP serves no current or historical purpose to the reader as a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Basically agree here about CDPs - the census does not confer legal recognition on a community. Any locale may be listed in a census (for example, the UK census includes individual households). Things like e.g., incorporation do. In this case, anyway, the article simply duplicates content already on wiki. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. I looked at the first AfD and the article served as a disambiguation page for the two CDPs. (example here) I would think this is a valid compromise as the former CDP would still show up in databases. On that same tangent, there's WP:USPLACE, WP:MPN, and WP:WIAN. I would want to imagine this instance of a CDP splitting into two isn't a one-off event? WP:PLACEDAB seems like a perfect place to see what to do in these scenarios? So a delete seems valid as a census-defined boundary has no established basis (WP:GEOLAND) and the history of the former CDP can be explained in the separate articles. It just seems like I'm missing some important disambiguation guideline here. Like, the existence of X and the existence of Y does not mean the existence of X-Y. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – I converted this page from a dab in 2016 per WP:XY. The topic seems borderline notable.  "Keep", "delete" and "redirect to Contra Costa County, California" all look like reasonable outcomes.  Certes (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * delete CDPs typically correspond to unincorporated towns and thus serve as a source of data, and also to validate the town's notability. These combined CDPs are artifacts of census decisions which they have mostly taken back by splitting them up to one CDP per community. No CDP is notable of itself. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 12 November 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.