Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Ridge, Arizona

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Ridge, Arizona[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)

This is just a non-notable neighborhood within Phoenix, Arizona. Does not have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources," necessary to meet WP:GNG MB 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep meets WP:GEOLAND 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. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is legally recognized? MB 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my note below, MB.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable and nothing significant about it. It is just a neighborhood in Glendale, Arizona - Jay (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightburst. It doesn't have much info (and Phoenix, Arizona, doesn't even mention it), but the US Geological Survey recognizes it and Wikipedia is also a gazetteer. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree with the good faith of the nom, it is notable as per WP:GEOLAND since it is officially recognized by the USGS as a populated place. I also find it interesting to Whjayg pipe in here, since they have so many AfD contributions. Could it be that this is the start of some WP:HOUNDING, since we had a disagreement over two articles they created? Might I suggest it be nipped in the bud.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The verbiage in Geoland refers to "legally recognized" populated places, not "officially recognized". Being mentioned by the USGS in a directory of all place names in the country does not confer "legal status". This is just a neighborhood (actually just a housing development named by the original builder), one of thousands in the city that are similarly non-notable. The nature of this "populated place" clearly fits within the second bullet of Geoland - "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments". A further note is that this "name" got picked up by the GNIS only because it was first listed in "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." per the citation in GNIS. Whatever this guidebook was (I can find no mention of it anywhere except that one GNIS citation) is a tenuous basis for "legal recognition" MB 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being recognized by the federal government meets WP:GEOLAND.11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND Smartyllama (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, also, NeighborhoodScout has some info including "Most neighborhoods are composed of a mixture of ages of homes, but the Autumn Ridge / Dunhill Place stands out as rather unique in having nearly all of its residential real estate built in one time period, namely between 1970 and 1999, generally considered to be established, but not old housing." that could be incorporated into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should definitely not be added to the article as it is machine-generated gibberish. Most neighborhoods in the greater Phoenix area are built over a few years by one developer. Autumn Ridge is NOT unique at all. MB 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeighborhoodScout also appears only to auto-generate statistics from certain census tracts and isn't an WP:RS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, NS uses census tables to automatically generate pages for each of the 74,134 census tracts in the country, in this case Census Tract 618100. GEOLAND specifically says "One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." It also says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." This census tract is NOT the same as Autumn Ridge. Where are the sources about the subdivision itself that are written by humans? Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks everybody, i am duly chastised and have deleted my "keep". :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per User:MB's nomination and sensible responses, esp. including that GNIS mention ("mention by the federal government") absolutely does NOT establish a legal entity. It is apparently just a housing development sometimes termed a neighborhood by random realtors. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that point, the GNIS entry literally states that Autumn Ridge is "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. (emphasis added).

User:SportingFlyer's comment below clarifies for me that the type of populated places we want to cover are the current or former unincorporated communities/settlements out there, that might be ghost towns now or in the future, that generally don't have exact boundaries. Not just any subsection of an urban or suburban fully developed area that someone can define/coin. We do cover "neighborhoods" sometimes, such as those covered in Neighborhoods in Boston, which starts off with a list of 23 official, meaningful neighborhoods used in planning and in delivery of city services, and goes on to mention overlapping other neighborhoods. If wp:GNG is met about an unofficial area that overlaps official ones, or otherwise does not coincide with any legal entity, then fine, we can cover it. But not any and every housing development or mini-neighborhood or maxi-neighborhood name that is coined by random people. We don't want to cover an area entirely within legal/known larger populated places, which has meaning only the eyes of a realtor trying to make an area sound good, and wanting it to be new and distinctive perhaps so they can say they are the only realtor supposedly specializing in that area, in order to try to drum up business for themselves. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not actually a "populated place" per our Wikipedia guidelines. The GNIS notes: "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." (emphasis mine) It appears to be a subdevelopment, wholly within an already legally populated place, which has a USGS database entry for some reason. Other similar entries include Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona - there are 867 in total of which 25% are mobile home parks, so it is not as if the database is capturing unincorporated towns, and the two most recent non-mobile trailer park additions are not cities but subdevelopments, suggesting we cannot use this dataset in good faith with WP:GEOLAND, which is meant to identify populated places. The three kickers for me: 1) this place has no legally recognised census count, 2) this place is wholly located within a legally recognised place and 3) this place definitively fails WP:GNG. The WP:GNG is important here because nobody recognises this place as a place except for the USGS, and while every distinct housing subdevelopment in Phoenix typically receives its own name. Since WP:GEOLAND only creates a presumption of notability, albeit a very strong presumption as we are a gazetteer, this is a good example of a place which we do not need to have an entry for. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a newspapers.com search in Arizona. The only thing I could find was this advertisement for a subdevelopment: [1] (ran on multiple days but only giving you this one.) Other coverage was for apartments with the same name in different areas than the subdevelopment. My speculation: this development was originally built on unincorporated land and then later annexed into Glendale, but I have absolutely nothing to prove that. I don't think the spirit of WP:GEOLAND extends to defining housing developments as a "populated place," it's loose because we want to include any town, city, or village regardless of their levels of coverage, and this is none of those things. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up this subdivision in the Maricopa County GIS and found a 1982 aerial photo with four homes built. This matches the time-frame of the 1983 advertisement above. The plat information says this is a subdivision of 97 lots/homes. This is in Phoenix (although the mailing address is Glendale). I couldn't find a historical boundary map to show it was county land at the time, but I think SportingFlyer is correct that it was unincorporated and later annexed into (Phoenix). I also found that there is also an Autumn Ridge-2 subdivision just down the street in Glendale with 220 lots. MB 03:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS/USGS is NOT "legal recognition", it is a database of names that have appeared on maps. NGEO "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." How is a database of names on maps any different from the map itself? This is clearly a subdivision that falls under "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc". The subdivision is located in incorporated Deer Valley, Arizona: THAT is the legally recognized place, not these streets that make up half of Census Tract 618100. There are not sources that establish notability of this place. Reywas92^Talk 03:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO as set out by above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This area must meet the higher bar of 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 sources do not exist to pass GNG required by GEOLAND #2, this article should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 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.