Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arroyo Vista, California

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Vista, California[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable housing development. Was PRODded in 2020; article was kept with addition of two news articles as sources. These articles are extremely WP:MILL coverage of mundane landownder disputes; almost no information about the community could be found. Lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG, and since there are at least two other developments named Arroyo Vista in the Sacramento area, this article is confusing as well as uninformative. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article describes what is at its most basic, a subdivision. WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions plainly states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. This place is Non-legally recognized and therefore must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable and remain a standalone article. No sources have been presented that demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED or WP:NRV. Policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into a related article or deleted. This place is a recent construct that was never legally recognized, cited news article describes the Arroyo Vista as a group of people not a place. I see no reason to merge it with the county article.James.folsom (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a section in El Dorado Hills, California about its multiple incorporation attempts over the past quarter century, including the two since the one discussed in this article's source, I would say that that is an obvious merger target. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per lack of significant coverage. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (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.