- 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. Tone 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- King Arthur Park, Montana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Run-of-the-mill subdivision/trailer park with no significant coverage to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This is a difficult one since it's a manufactured home community outside Bozeman. Articles like [1] refer to it as being in Bozeman, and the addresses go to Bozeman, but it is an official US census-designated place (type it in here) which I think probably qualifies for "legally defined populated place." SportingFlyer T· C 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep According to WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally-recognized places are considered notable, and official designation by the U.S. Census Bureau certainly counts as legal recognition. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that CDPs have any legal standing. They're just used for statistical purposes. – dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It's a manufactured home park with about 200 lots. The news article above calls it a neighborhood and as such needs to meet GNG under GEOLAND#2. Census-designated places are defined for statistical purposes only. MB 00:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is not a valid delete rationale. If you believe it falls under GEOLAND#2 then that mandates a merge: "information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", which would be merge to Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places.---- Pontificalibus 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, often legal definitions differ from popular definitions and this may be such a place. Meets
GEOLAND however and is still recognised as a place in general terminology. In cases like this
GNG is also arguably met due to
significant coverage existing is statistical listings such as
this.
J
947 (
c), at
01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –
dlthewave
☎
02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- My theory is that if they are entirely based off government sources so they are reliable but upon reflection since they are basically all copies of each other in different formats they only should count for one source. GEOLAND should be enough for notability though. J 947 ( c), at 03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –
dlthewave
☎
02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is a distinct named populated place outwith the boundaries of Bozeman, it therefore doesn't fall under GEOLAND2 as a subdivision but GEOLAND1 as a legally recognized place. ---- Pontificalibus 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND, this a census designated place with a population. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's small, but apparently a real place. Bearian ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (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.
- 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. Tone 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- King Arthur Park, Montana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Run-of-the-mill subdivision/trailer park with no significant coverage to establish notability. – dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This is a difficult one since it's a manufactured home community outside Bozeman. Articles like [1] refer to it as being in Bozeman, and the addresses go to Bozeman, but it is an official US census-designated place (type it in here) which I think probably qualifies for "legally defined populated place." SportingFlyer T· C 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep According to WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally-recognized places are considered notable, and official designation by the U.S. Census Bureau certainly counts as legal recognition. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that CDPs have any legal standing. They're just used for statistical purposes. – dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It's a manufactured home park with about 200 lots. The news article above calls it a neighborhood and as such needs to meet GNG under GEOLAND#2. Census-designated places are defined for statistical purposes only. MB 00:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is not a valid delete rationale. If you believe it falls under GEOLAND#2 then that mandates a merge: "information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", which would be merge to Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places.---- Pontificalibus 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, often legal definitions differ from popular definitions and this may be such a place. Meets
GEOLAND however and is still recognised as a place in general terminology. In cases like this
GNG is also arguably met due to
significant coverage existing is statistical listings such as
this.
J
947 (
c), at
01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –
dlthewave
☎
02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- My theory is that if they are entirely based off government sources so they are reliable but upon reflection since they are basically all copies of each other in different formats they only should count for one source. GEOLAND should be enough for notability though. J 947 ( c), at 03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –
dlthewave
☎
02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is a distinct named populated place outwith the boundaries of Bozeman, it therefore doesn't fall under GEOLAND2 as a subdivision but GEOLAND1 as a legally recognized place. ---- Pontificalibus 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND, this a census designated place with a population. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's small, but apparently a real place. Bearian ( talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (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.