Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma Meadows Mobile Home Park

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Meadows Mobile Home Park[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD based on belief that listing in the USGS Geographic Names Information System is automatic justification for article. A trailer-park or any neighborhood within a city/town needs to be independently notable. This one is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona for similar discussion. MB 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." By definition, the USGS designation is legal recognition of the place. And the USGS listing gives the location the definition of a "populated place". There is nothing, as the nominator claims, in Geoland which says that a populated place which meets the main requirement of Geoland must also show independent notability if it is located within a city/town. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon inspection, these all appear to be non-notable neighbourhoods within recognized communities where you can park a mobile home. GEOLAND does not automatically confer notability, therefore. GEOLAND is expressly not a carte blanche for every subdivision. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Based on what I found online (real estate listings, help wanted, management office, etc.), this appears to be a fairly large senior housing complex. It might just pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This place has exactly 157 spaces. It has a clubhouse and a swimming pool. A relatively small park of a couple of hundred residents. Nothing to make it notable. If there were an apartment building, would we even be having this discussion. This is just one of hundreds or thousands of such places. MB 05:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they are within a recognized community like this one is, then they're just a neighborhood. A stand-alone one might be notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable subdivision; no indications or notability nor significant RS coverage to confirm notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2016 (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.