- 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pocono Ranch Lands, Pennsylvania ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Large subdivision/census tract census-designated place, does not meet
WP:GEOLAND #2. –
dlthewave
☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC) –
dlthewave
☎
16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes GEOLAND #1 as a legally recognized place, a census-designated place. Not to be confused with a census tract which is a different entity. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per EDDY above. Djflem ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going with weak keep as we have generally held CDPs to be notable enough. Mangoe ( talk) 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete there is not evidence in our WP:SNG to show that CDPs are inherently notable - they are essentially Census-tracts which must pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Since this does not pass SNG this would have to pass GNG. Lightburst ( talk) 20:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Census-designated places are explicitly different from census tracts in the US; the only real similarity is that they're both defined by the Census Bureau. While the entire country is divided into census tracts, including large incorporated cities and completely uninhabited areas, census-designated places that the Census Bureau determines should be counted as places despite not being incorporated. This amounts to official government recognition of census-designated places as named communities, which means they pass WP:GEOLAND. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 01:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I do not believe there is any consensus regarding Census-designated places passing WP:GEOLAND. It appears the keep !votes are WP:IAR. Lightburst ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
- The consensus per WP:GEOLAND say: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, 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.", not delete. Djflem ( talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 23:22, 12 April 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pocono Ranch Lands, Pennsylvania ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Large subdivision/census tract census-designated place, does not meet
WP:GEOLAND #2. –
dlthewave
☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC) –
dlthewave
☎
16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly passes GEOLAND #1 as a legally recognized place, a census-designated place. Not to be confused with a census tract which is a different entity. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per EDDY above. Djflem ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going with weak keep as we have generally held CDPs to be notable enough. Mangoe ( talk) 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete there is not evidence in our WP:SNG to show that CDPs are inherently notable - they are essentially Census-tracts which must pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Since this does not pass SNG this would have to pass GNG. Lightburst ( talk) 20:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Census-designated places are explicitly different from census tracts in the US; the only real similarity is that they're both defined by the Census Bureau. While the entire country is divided into census tracts, including large incorporated cities and completely uninhabited areas, census-designated places that the Census Bureau determines should be counted as places despite not being incorporated. This amounts to official government recognition of census-designated places as named communities, which means they pass WP:GEOLAND. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 01:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I do not believe there is any consensus regarding Census-designated places passing WP:GEOLAND. It appears the keep !votes are WP:IAR. Lightburst ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
- The consensus per WP:GEOLAND say: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, 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.", not delete. Djflem ( talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 23:22, 12 April 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.