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. RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, apparently defunct mobile home park, sourced from a directory which appears to have a much less stringent criteria than we do for populated places (otherwise 250+ mobile home parks in Arizona would be presumptively notable), fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 10:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any indication of population, or how "defunct" it is? We have a vanishingly low notability standard for geographical places, especially if (or if ever) populated. It would be strange to keep all the undeletable Indian villages, and the British crossroads "notable because it has a telephone box", yet delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a bit of original research at historicaerials.com shows no indication of any mobile home park at the point where OSM says it is. The only results are from sites using the same database to populate their data. It's not impossible the mobile home complex was in a different place, but that doesn't inspire confidence. This is a bad stub created from an unreliable database. SportingFlyerT·C 12:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it's failing WP:V rather than WP:N? I could go with that too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. Not defunct, still a neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Neighborhood Scout, has a pretty extensive report on the location, using data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the U.S. Geological Service. Since it has "an official federally recognized name", as per the USGS, it passes GEOLAND's populated, legally recognized places criteria. It also comes up in other geo database searches (although with very little info, simply proof of existence), such as Michelin. Okay, I think I found the issue, when looking for other sources, I discovered the DEC and DMS coordinates in USGS don't match: when using DMS, it gives a location further west, near Apache Junction, while when using DEC the location is more east, in Mesa. SportingFlyer's source absolutely shows nothing there, when using DMS, but when using DEC, it brings up the correct location, supported by those other database sources, as well as Neighborhood Scout. I've changed the coords to DEC. Onel5969TT me 14:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another non-notable "neighborhood". Being listed in the GNIS database does not confer "legal recognition", therefore fails WP:GEOLAND as having insufficient coverage as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments," etc. MB 16:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indication of notability. The GNIS is NOT "legal recognition", it is simply a database of anything that has appeared on a map. The GNIS citation is just the Yellow Pages! The Michelin site merely uses the GNIS database and is not indication that any person has acknowledged it, just that the coordinates are imported. Neighborhood Scout's data is NOT for this supposed neighborhood, it's autogenerated for Census Tract 422628, which is explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. NS produces these reports for all of the 74,134 census tracts in the country like this other one nearby. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a precedent (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 among others) that trailer/mobile home parks and similar recent residential developments are not notable unless proven otherwise (e.g. clearly passes WP:GNG or is a census-designated place). This one doesn't seem to be an exception. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 15:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. We have a low bar for these populated places. Onel5969 does some good work here. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a low bar for populated places with legal recognition. "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." This subdivision isn't legally recognised, and WP:GNG isn't met here. SportingFlyerT·C 01:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per the USGS, it passes WP:GEOLAND's populated, legally recognized places criteria.
Desert Village Mobile Home Park (GNIS FID: 36966) is a populated place located in Maricopa County at latitude 33.413 and longitude -111.623. The elevation of Desert Village Mobile Home Park is 1,542 feet. Desert Village Mobile Home Park appears on the Apache Junction U.S. Geological Survey Map. Maricopa County is in the Mountain Time Zone (UTC -7 hours).
As per the USGS, it is not a federally recognised place. A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. Therefore it has to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 02:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about "Federal" in GEOLAND #1 Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Now I leave this AfD about a mobile home park to do other work. My !vote is citing policy and guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS is a federal/national database, the census is performed federally in the US, and if the federal government didn't recognise it but the state did I would agree with you, but there's absolutely no evidence of that. SportingFlyerT·C 02:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHere you can find the USGS Topo maps for this location – the 1956 map notes about 30 Trailer Parks. An advanced search in GNIS, a database of everything that has ever appeared on the topo maps, for the "Apache Junction" quad brings up no fewer than60mobilehomeparks, all listing "Yellow Pages" or "Citation Unknown" as the source. The idea that the drafters of GEOLAND intended its definition of "populated, legally recognized places" to be identical to that of the GNIS, to mean Yellow Pages entries of subdivisions and neighborhoods rather than actual cities, towns, and villages in which they are located, is simply absurd. This notion willfully disregards the explicit specification of "subdivisions...unofficial neighborhoods" in the following line, which a mobile home park clearly is, and it willfully disregards our expectation that when something is "presumed to be notable", further sources could be found. This is not the case. Reywas92Talk 08:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete@Reywas92: Per Geoland #1 I have strong disagreement with your statement ...when something is "presumed to be notable", further sources could be found because that is not the high bar which is required to meet GEOLAND #1. However you make some very reasoned arguments here regarding the legal status of this area and the opinion that this area must meet the higher bar of GEOLAND #2. Your research has shown that this area does not fit under criteria #1: additionally I was unable to locate the Desert Village Mobile Home Park, in the 2000 census. So this is then a neighborhood/subdivision/housing development and the area must meet the higher bar set in GEOLAND #2. …subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And because no sources exist to pass GNG required by GEOLAND #2, this article should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.