Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadow Oaks, Florida

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. There seems to be a rough consensus that this census-designated place barely passes WP:GEOLAND. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Oaks, Florida

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

Meadow Oaks, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOLAND, as its only legal recognition appears to be as a census tract, which is the exception to GEOLAND #1.

A search for sources reveals that there are a few passing mentions that may refer to the location, typically in the context of deed transfers, there appears to be no in-depth coverage, meaning that it also fails WP:GNG.

Given that over 2000 people live there, it seems likely that there is coverage, but I have not been able to identify it - it may be that the coverage of the location uses the name of the broader geographical area. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks like there's a Meadow Oaks Golf Club in the area given for this community on Google Maps, which gives its address as being in Hudson, Florida. Niche.com calls it a suburb of Tampa. Florida Politics mentions it as a community in inland Pasco County. Maybe this is a suburb based on some golf club? wizzito | say hello! 02:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google Maps shows a big "Meadow Oaks Golf Course Community" sign at the entrance, the kind you would see at a subdivision. The CDP boundary on Niche shows that it encompasses several other subdivisions that are also listed on nearby sign: Shadow Lakes, Sugar Creek and Shadow Lake Estates. CDPs are often kept, but this one just seems to be a big census tract that was drawn on the map to facilitate counting people rather than an actual distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Census-designated places are different from census tracts; they're communities that the U.S. Census Bureau decides are worth tracking the population of even though they're not incorporated. The census documentation for a census-designated place provides coverage of a place's demographics and geography, which can be used to develop the article. As for Meadow Oaks specifically, Tampa newspapers seem to have documented its development; it was built in the 1980s as a community centered around a new golf course. There's coverage here and here about the community's planning, here and here about ongoing construction in the early 2000s, and several articles about the golf course [1] [2] [3] [4]. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meadow Lakes CDP was established as part of the 2010 census as noted in this report (page 19 of the pdf explains the changes from the 2000 census, Meadow Oaks specifically on page 25 with Pasco County). From what I gathered from Pasco County Planning, Meadow Oaks is pretty much the extent of the existing development and most likely built-out. The 2020 census noted an increase in 400 people and 96 residential units which supports this thought.[5] – The Grid (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CDPs are certainly unincorporated communities and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia precedent documents (all of) them as one feature/function of a gazetteer. Wikipedia should remain consistent with the US government on this coverage. Djflem (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is understanding the context of how it's being utilized regardless of it being defined as a census-designated place by the Census Bureau. It's important to note a CDP is essentially a statistical entity with no legal basis. What is interesting with the 2020 Census, the lower government entities can provide updates to the CDP boundaries to the Census Bureau. [6] – The Grid (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:"criteria established for the 2010 Census require that a CDP name "be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" (not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes") and recommend that a CDP's boundaries be mapped based on the geographic extent associated with inhabitants' regular use of the named place." Documenting inhabited places (and previously inhabited places in many cases) has consistent standard practice.Djflem (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the referenced federal document, and while it does explain one thing I had noticed (the elimination of hyphenated CDPs) the one thing it does not explain is why one place that meets the qualifications gets a CDP, and another does not. Lots of subdivisions would appear to be potential CDPs, so why are so few of them so recognized? Mangoe (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: That would be a question for the Census Bureau, but it is not a AFD argument, is it?Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I can reply to Djflem in a better way but...why are you looking at the Wikipedia article when the definition is coming from the Census Bureau?! From what I provided above: "CDPs are statistical equivalents of incorporated places and represent unincorporated communities that do not have a legally defined boundary or an active, functioning governmental structure. Examples of CDPs include unincorporated communities, planned communities, military installments, university towns, resort towns, etc." – a CDP is a "Census-designated place" because it is literally a designation defined by the Census. It is purely used for statistics and planning. – The Grid (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid: Have you read the in the Federal Register "Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census – Final Criteria" (PDF). Federal Register (Volume 73, Number 30). February 13, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2016. which gives a much more indepth explanation and definition of how CDPs are indeed communities, and not random census tracts.?Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph of the report: CDPs are statistical geographic entities representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name. They are the statistical equivalents of incorporated places, with the primary differences being the lack of both a legally-defined boundary and an active, functioning governmental structure, chartered by the state and administered by elected officials.
For reference: The Federal Register's documentation of CDPs for 2020 census. [7]
Also, "There are no minimum population or housing unit thresholds for defining CDPs; however, a CDP must contain some population or housing units or both." – The Grid (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAND. CDP's are notable 99% of the time, as it can be argued that it becomes "legally recognized." ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a consensus that it does represent legal recognition. Every time a CDP-associated place comes up for deletion, we have this argument. Mangoe (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that CDPs are kept because they represent identifiable communities.Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, and I have my doubts that it is true. Communities represented by CDPs are rarely taken to AfD in the first place because they mostly represent obvious towns and the like, which would pass GNG handily, never mind geographic standards. Every time one comes up where the place itself doesn't clearly pass notability in its own right, we get into this argument over whether the CDP designation is enough. That to me reads as a lack of consensus. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that argument that matters it's the outcome that does, and consensus has almost consistently been to keep.Djflem (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely does matter what the argument was. If only arguments presented were "Keep - is a CDP" and that resulted in the article being kept that is one thing, but if instead the real argument made was "Keep - here's some Sigcov" then that would be another. Coming up with CDPs that have been deleted/redirected is trivially easy, e.g., -
Hey look, here's a no-consensus close that literally states that the status of CDPs is undecided. But even if CDPs had been kept automatically in the past, simply keeping this article now because of that would be illogical because "keep this article because we keep this kind of article" is circular reasoning. There quite simply is no such consensus on Wikipedia about CDPs, and attempts to create such a consensus through repeated assertion should not be countenanced. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also even for Djflem to state that consensus has been consistent ignores that consensus can change. – The Grid (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One can with "trivial ease" observe that indeed only one the aforementioned afds for a CDP resulted in delete; two in redirects, and one in no consensus.
2021:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vine Hill-Pacheco, California (2nd nomination)), which as the AFD pointed out was a former CDP which had been split into two. Basic clean up.
2021:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam-Churchill, Montana another redirect of former CDP to the new CDPS which were created, which appears to be simply updating and clean-up.
2020:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhlenberg Park, Pennsylvania clearly observed there is no consensus to delete CDPS.
2017:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Johns Mission, Arizona clarified that what was mission/school was indeed better handled in the CDP in which it is located and not as a separate article.
Thus, the survey provided indicates to indicate former CDPS should be cleaned up, a dubious situation is better redirected, and that there is no consensus to delete CDPS, whereas Consensus through editing and outcomes would suggest keep. Djflem (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DR version of your comment is "CDPs are always kept except for the ones that weren't kept". Trying to adduce a consensus from that, particularly where one of them was literally closed with the statement that there was actually no consensus about CDPs, is something of a reach. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not. My comment clarifies your survey. I have responded below as the discussion touches on similar issue mentioned there.Djflem (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is NO agreed automatic notability for CDPs - you'd think the people who keep asserting this as if it were the case would know this, since the point is argued at every AFD where it is raised. To re-iterate the arguments against CDPs as "legally recognised communities" as required for a pass under WP:GEOLAND#1 (which is still only an indicator of what typically is notable), they are often simply accounting units used in the census, they are not required to have any centre or any actual community associated with them, they are not a form of legal recognition (i.e., they do not confer any change in status/powers/governance) of the kind that would necessarily create the coverage needed for an encyclopaedic article. If CDPs uncontroversially legally-recognised communities, the guidelines would say so, but they don't, because they aren't.
Even asserting that "CDP's are notable 99% of the time" begs the question of whether this is a case that falls into the 1%. This is particularly the case when people above are arguing that this is a WP:GNG pass, which would necessarily require multiple instances of significant coverage, when in this case there isn't even a single one. Instead the coverage is GNIS (unreliable) and a US census tally (pure database/table excluded under WP:NGEO).
The sign stating that it is a "golfing community" is a pretty heavy hint of what it is we are actually talking about here - a hunch that is born out by looking at the over-head view. We're talking about a golf-course/country-club, and the real standard is WP:CORP, which is obviously failed. FOARP (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you may or may not think it's enough to pass GNG, I was able to find non-trivial newspaper coverage of the community's development, which I cited in my !vote. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOARP and my comments about CDPs above. I would argue if this existed for several decennial censuses but it was added in the 2010 census. The boundary contains the development of the same name and it looks to be built out. The 2020 census noted an increase in 400 people and 96 residential units. There's not going to be much change in the CDP going forward. [8] – The Grid (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it doesn't seem to be just a census tract since City Population has an entry for it so I think GEOLAND#1 is passed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citypopulation.de is not a reliable source. It directly tells us that it is sourced to Wikipedia and similar sources. FOARP (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the text yes it gets from Wikidata namely the "unincorporated community and census-designated place in Pasco County, Florida, United States – Elevation: 33 m – Local dialing code: 352" but not the data its self which it states is from the U.S. Census Bureau. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then this information should be cited directly to the census bureau, if that is where it really came from - an aggregator website is not reliable for this. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also states Wikipedia as a source...it very well could be circular referencing here. – The Grid (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CDPs are a special form of "official recognition" by the Census Burueau, and, are not as claimed: "often simply accounting units used in the census, they are not required to have any centre or any actual community associated with them" or that they are "purely for statistics and planning." The actual definition is better taken from the reliable source, "Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census – Final Criteria" (PDF). Federal Register (Volume 73, Number 30). February 13, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2016. rather than opinions such as above. That definition is detailed in that clearly states that CDPS are geographic entities (as well as statistical equivalents of incorporated areas), and are identified as communities by the population associated with them. Djflem (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical equivalent =/= equivalent in terms of notability. Particularly the document you've just posted states that "the primary differences [with incorporated communities] being the lack of both a legally-defined boundary and an active, functioning governmental structure, chartered by the state and administered by elected officials" - these are the precise things that make legally-recognised communities notable, because they are precisely the things that generate significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to that opinion. I would say most the millions who live in CDPs would identify with the definition that CDPS are "geographic entities representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name.", ie the place where they live, work, shop, recreate, etc. Documenting "closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name" is completely consistent with the Consensus through editing.Djflem (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Segueing directly from "I would say" to "the consensus is" shows what the actual nature of the consensus on CDPs is: there is none. There are conflicting views of which yours is one. Places are not notable simply because they are places where people "live, work, shop, recreate, etc.", if they were then the street I live on (which is also a "closely settled, unincorporated communit[y] that [is] locally recognized and identified by name") would also be notable.
The reason for requiring actual legal recognition (e.g., actual incorporation) is that it inevitably creates significant coverage of some kind from which a history of the location can be constructed. Mere statistical recognition does not do this as the only coverage is statistical, not significant.
And even with all this, GEOLAND#1 only indicates what is typically notable, it is not a fully automatic keep, particularly where there just simply isn't any actual coverage, because in reality the topic is apparently some kind of country-club/golf-course and the real standard is WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one 1 "delete" you've offered as an example above was a former hyphenated CDP (the typed of which no longer exists) which was replaced by two articles on the two CDPs it was split into, thus a technical deletion based on a split demonstrating an instance of keeping and expanding the material on Wikipedia. The 2 other was clean up redirect of another former hyphenated CDP, which was a reasonable outcome for a former CDP (of that type that no longer exists). The 3 other was not of a CDP article at all, despite the claim that it was. The question was whether the material should be covered in the CDP target article, resulting in keeping both the material and the target. The 4 fourth article cited makes a claim by the closer, which is comment, not policy or guideline or consensus since closers should make neutral closing comments specific to the closing they make, and thus should be read that way. So, yes, there was no consensus to delete the afd in question. From the above survey you've offered one cannot conclude that CDPs delete/redirects have been based on much other than technical reasons, whereas editing through consensus in the creation and maintenance of CDP articles overwhelmingly demonstrates a community interest in having articles on Wikipedia about CDPs. Djflem (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The archive, which contains any and all examples, is there for review.Djflem (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • HEY Article has been expanded significantly since nom. Djflem (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the new sources added are either passing mentions, maps (which are excluded from showing notability by NGEO), obvious algorithm-generated content, or are significant coverage of the Meadow Oaks Golf and Country Club, which again highlights the fact that WP:CORP is the real standard that should be applied here, and that for all the abstract discussion of CDPs above, what we are really talking about is a business of some sort. I mean, have you ever heard of an unincorporated community filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy? No, that's what businesses do. It's a pity that so many of these US Geo AFDs turn into efforts to try to play up the most obviously WP:MILL or even WP:PROMO newspaper coverage, and completely ignore WP:NOTNEWS.
I could still be open to keeping an article refactored to the Golf Club if the WP:AUD requirement could be met, but this would require something better than just coverage in local press. FOARP (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no mention of the topic you're rambling on about in the article (never was), so thanks for pointing out that the reference used for that total red herring (and mischaracterzation) was unneeded since the article is not about a business. It's about a community that is a census-designated place, of the type that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive from 2016 to date clearly establishes precedent and community consensus to keep (despite the 4 previously mentioned above, which also proves that point).10:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
That the article does not accurately reflect the only significant coverage found (which universally describes this as a golf course and country club) is a problem for the article, not for the sourcing. Again, there is simply no such consensus about CDPs. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. There have been 7 keeps of CDPs
2. There has been 1 keep of a CDP specifically segregated in a bundled nomination
3. There have been 17 redirects/merges of neighborhoods/unincorporated communities to CDP which is targeted primary article of recognized populated place
4. There have been 2 no consensus to delete CDP
5. There has been 1 redirect of a former CDP (of the hyphenated type curtailed by the Census Bureau)
6. There has been 1 deletion of former CDP (of the hyphenated type curtailed by the Census Bureau)

Djflem (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Small communities still meet our general notability requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it meets geoland, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is most likely going to end up as no consensus but this discussion should continue to at least evaluate WP:GEOLAND in the context of CDPs with the recent census. I think we can have a more level headed approach as I admit I started my discussion in here a little bit over the top and I apologize to Djflem if it seemed like it was too much. – The Grid (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's worthwhile to have these case-by-case discussions since there's not clear consensus for CDPs. My 2 cents would be that CDP designation isn't a great indicator of notability, since it's just used for the purpose of counting people and doesn't seem to be applied consistently across similar neighborhoods. However I don't find them as concerning as, say, GNIS entries since they're always real places. It's a question of subjective notability rather than verifiability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The delineation and establishment of geographic borders of known, recognizable unincorporated places with a distinct identity is work done by local/state bodies in conjunction with the Census Bureau ("Comparing 2010 and 2020 Census Area Boundaries". Sarasota County, Florida. 10 February 2021.) and is much more than merely 'counting people', so much so that the Florida Department of State lists CDPs equally with incorporated places.("City County List". Division of Library and Information Services.).Djflem (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Arbitration clearly states that "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus"
Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) and any discussion at an individual afd is local consensus with limited participation (thus, subordinate to global consensus).
A nomination for deletion is a proposed edit by a contributor to eliminate an article. Since 2018 the Wikipedia community has consistently and overwhelmingly rejected those proposed edits. That is a global consensus 'to edit a certain way" developed through community-wide participation over an extended period of time. The consensus through editing seen in the outcomes of more than 25 afds involving CDPs (described in above NOTE) clearly demonstrates broad participation, preference, and precedent to edit so that CDP articles are kept or are the targets of merge/redirects.Djflem (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point here. There's still a case-by-case to review these CDPs. For instance, the Sarasota County ArcGIS map shows the changes of several CDPs. (One of them I did not even realize wasn't a CDP prior to 2020 - Palmer Ranch, Florida - but I already knew from my own review and knowledge of the area that it was sufficient for WP:GNG) – The Grid (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not missing the point, making one - about sustained outcomes and global consensus - which specifically addresses yours. Djflem (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the deletion sorting for geography archive from 2018-to date of 30 afds involving CDPs (see NOTE above), the two local discussions (brought by the same nominator) resulting in no consensus to delete show that here in 4/2020 five (maybe 6) of nine participants (including nominator, 1 redirect) stated the CDPs should be kept and that here in 4/2020 two of four participants (including nominator) stated that CDPs should be kept. Djflem (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NGEO's lede states "Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question." As such, I don't believe this discussion about whether this is excluded from presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND due to being a census tract is particularly relevant; the notability of this geographical feature has been called into question, and now we need to consider it on the grounds of WP:GNG. I believe the following source assessment table will help with that:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://data.news-press.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/meadow-oaks-cdp-florida/160-1243785/ Yes Yes No Statistical data only ✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps-data/data/gazetteer/2010_place_list_12.txt Yes Yes No Statistical data only ✘ No
https://www.uszip.com/zip/34669 Yes Yes No Statistical data only ✘ No
https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/summary/2583362 Yes ~ WP:RSP No Statistical data only ✘ No
https://dos.myflorida.com/library-archives/research/florida-information/government/local-resources/citycounty-list/ Yes Yes No List of locations; specified as a "census designated place" ✘ No
http://www.hudsonfla.com/neighborhoods2.htm ? No Appears to be self published No Single paragraph on Meadow Oaks, with most content covering the country club ✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/econ/ec2012/cbsa/EC2012_310M200US45300M.pdf?# Yes Yes No A map ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941429/tampa-bay-times/ ~ Significant direct quoting Yes No Statistical data only (prices, size, cost), with the exception of the direct quotes which are not independent ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941828/the-tampa-tribune/ Yes Yes No Coverage of the country club, not the community ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941851/tampa-bay-times/ Yes Yes No Coverage of the country club, not the community ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941892/tampa-bay-times/ Yes Yes No Coverage of the country club, not the community ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/92941748/the-tampa-tribune/ ~ Mostly consists of restating which various individuals said, without further analysis Yes No Only independent information is basic facts; units cut from 116 to 103, what the commission was asked, etc ✘ No
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2002/03/07/meadow-oaks-developers-told-to-stop/ Yes Yes No Coverage of one of the developers, Tam Bay, not the community ✘ No
https://www.suncoastnews.com/news/pasco-leaders-halt-road-repaving-project/article_cf6f5894-a83e-11eb-8c35-53fefaec193f.html Yes Yes No Single paragraph about an amendment relating to the community discussed at the Pasco County Commission ✘ No
https://www.ramopoa.com/ No Published by Meadow Oaks ? ? ✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/tract/st12_fl/c12101_pasco/DC10CT_C12101_001.pdf Yes Yes No Map ✘ No
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2010/cph-2/cph-2-11.pdf Yes Yes No Statistical data only ✘ No
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/263027-ardian-zika-adds-two-major-endorsements-for-hd-37-campaign/ Yes Yes No Passing mention in a list of locations in HD 37 ✘ No
https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/pascocofl/17404bc1-e302-45e8-8361-c244d849c767.pdf?sv=2015-12-11&sr=b&sig=v65nkRVNEWUKqceYkoL%2BHjiBqjiUWOUe2Jr4zTZgE4g%3D&st=2022-01-29T20%3A15%3A01Z&se=2023-01-29T20%3A20%3A01Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf Yes Yes No Map ✘ No
https://civicclerk.blob.core.windows.net/stream/pascocofl/c161ee35-347f-46de-bf07-dbd37a01841e_PDF_A.pdf?sv=2015-12-11&sr=b&sig=BkkICoufKxwfpm2qBecFrVsihpVUMpqbC%2FQZ8z%2BnHbM%3D&st=2022-01-30T09%3A10%3A36Z&se=2023-01-30T09%3A15%3A36Z&sp=r&rscc=no-cache&rsct=application%2Fpdf Yes ~ Primary source No Description of zoning amendment ✘ No
https://www.pascocountyfl.net/DocumentCenter/View/2221/Tech-Support-Doc-Chapter-2-FLUn_Part1?bidId= Yes Yes No Statistical data and maps ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between a census tract, which this is not, and census-designated place, a uniquely American type of populated place, which this is. NGEO is specific about the former and notably silent on the latter. One can see CDPs (defined colored areas), the borders of which of were created by state/local authorities in conjunction with the federal government, can be part of more than one census tract. The discussion is relevant as the topic has been the subject of periodic and sustained local discussion. Djflem (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are both entities defined solely for statistical purposes. I stand by my point above, that the answer to this question isn't relevant, but I will note that WP:GEOLAND requires that the location is "legally recognized". Census-designated places "have no legal status", which mean they don't meet this requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the relevant discussions, archives of which can be found @ Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive, that point had been made and contested many times. Djflem (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The government's position is that they "have no legal status". As WP:GEOLAND requires the place to be "legally recognized", they do not meet GEOLAND. If you believe they should, I would suggest opening an RFC to change it from "legally recognized" to "officially recognized"
As for the previous discussions, the one at Notability (geographic features) appears to support my position, both in number of !votes, and in strength of arguments, and the deletion sorting archive includes thousands of discussions and no clear way to identify which are relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link provided refers to CDP borders, not CDPs themselves, which specifies that those borders do not have legal status, unlike delineations laid out in property deeds and election districts which, one assumes, are 'legally recognised' by the government and do. So, while there might be reason to replace one set of weasel words with another (legal vs. official), it would be of little effect in resolving the issue at hand. The interpretation of those words (or others like "formal/informal") and how the community has interpreted them does remain at the core at this discussion. Consensus through discussion (there are more at Notability (geographic features) than the above link) remains, well, "discussable". Consensus through editing in the arguments and outcomes in the archive (see summary in NOTE: above) shows the results of the community's interpretation and practice, which has afforded CDPs the same standing as incorporated places, and have been kept.
The discussion I listed, that appears to support my interpretation, is the only substantial one; the others are mentions in the context of other discussions that we cannot determine a consensus from. But this discussion isn't going anywhere; my position is both that it fails WP:GEOLAND, and that per WP:NGEO this notability can and has been questioned so whether it passes WP:GEOLAND is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, whether something 'passes' GEOLAND is very relevant, such as with incorporated places, which are always 'granted' nobility. The global consensus is that CDPs have a similar status, evidence of which has not been disproven. 12:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Same thing again and again - asserting there is a consensus doesn't make it true, particularly given the other AFDs where that wasn't shown including one that explicitly closed saying there was no such consensus about CDPs. Your argument amounts to "If you ignore everything saying otherwise, there is consensus about CDPs". If you want CDPs to be automatically given notability then we need a proper RFC saying that, since it isn't legal recognition in any meaningful sense (it confers no powers, requires no process of law etc.). It amounts to changing "legal recognition" to "official recognition". FOARP (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the repetition, but since it is you repeating a claim/argument made above, you can expect the same response and rationale for why it is a poor one: Besides the fact that a single AfD discussion does not a consensus make, the cherry-picked locale AfD (one of only two of 30 AfDs resulting in NC since 2018), in which 5/6 six of the 10 participants (incl nominator/1 redirect!vote) specifically stated that CPDs are inherently notable, further supports the global consensus that they are. You are welcome to disprove the the evidence of that establishment, which thus far you have not.Djflem (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not 'granted', they are 'presumed'. That presumption can be challenged. BilledMammal (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you check that, since consensus does hold that incorporated places are indeed 'granted' inherent nobility.Djflem (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking again, WP:GEOLAND uses 'presumed', not 'granted'. If you believe it should be 'granted', I would suggest opening an RFC, although I do not believe there will be a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was my whole point to discussing CDPs in a centralized discussion. We are at the start of a new census. We should be looking to see if any definitions of previously established census entities have been changed. This also extends to how individual states recognize them because they control how much fed aid ultimately gets used. This probably needs a view on each state's respective department pertaining to growth management or long-term planning. All that is for a different discussion. We are really going beyond the scope of this AfD and already had circular discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Questions about the veracity of the consensus that incorporated places are granted automatic inclusion in Wikipedia based on inherent nobility are better brought at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features). An inquiry there may clarify any doubts. Suggestions for wording changes in guidelines are better brought there, too, rather than in this AfD. Djflem (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to bring it there, but the current wording is clear that they are only granted presumed notability, not automatic inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to pass NGEOLAND and GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't a CDP similar to Suburbs and localities (Australia) in that although it may not be legally recognized like a municipality or district etc it is a place where population data is published for a named place as opposed to a random area, that is to say Meadow Oaks does refer to a place on the ground since there is Meadow Oaks Golf and County Club. Compare this on England to the fact that in addition to BUAs and BUASDs which are used to measure settlement themselves rather than a named area like the Australian ones that may be larger than the settlement. We also have the likes of Kersey[9] which does have its own unit of governance (though limited) namely Kersey Parish Council which also includes several settlements in addition to the village of Kersey. There is also Stanwix Rural[10] that has Stanwix Rural Parish Council but doesn't have a settlement of the same name but does cover a number of settlements. In contrast "Basildon 002D Lower-layer SOA" is a census tract which is a random area and doesn't have a name. While its true that individual buildings etc and ābādī may have data or at least be able to determine the population and thus be "populated" places but not be notable I don't think its required for a place to be an administrative division to be legally recognized and its quite clear that a place listed with a population of 2,842 which is not a random area does appear to satisfy the legally recognized part of GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible that they are similar, but if so it appears that notability isn't presumed for them, based on this list, which suggests we don't have articles for most such locations in Victoria. BilledMammal (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is a consensus that they are notable even if many have not been created, I recall that there was 1 that was merged which was an uninhabited one though. If you look at User:Crouch, Swale/Suffolk BUAs for English BUAs you can see most exist but a few don't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we had articles for most of them that would be possible, but the fact that most don't have articles suggests they are not notable. BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Lists of CDPs by state is a very clear indicator of the Wikipedia community's interest and desire to have complete coverage of CDPs (as would any encyclopeida worthy of the not paper it's printed on). So, if the fact that most don't have articles about them makes them not notable, then the converse must be true, too.Djflem (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are an indicator an editor called Ram-Man went around in 2002 and created tens of thousands of short articles through an automated process, filled in with data sourced solely from the census. Since then, some of the articles have had a lot written about them; the ones about CDPs have not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: And of the more than 30 nominations for articles for deletion results involving CPDS, all (except for one technical reason) have survived, which is the best test and indicator of community's consensus to keep them, which you don't appear to disagree with or prove otherwise. Djflem (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your count is correct, I don't consider it relevant, for two reasons. First, WP:CCC, and second because the argument is circular reasoning. You are arguing that because an article on a CDP has never been deleted, an article on a CDP can never be deleted. If you want to establish that they can never be deleted, you need to get a consensus for that at WP:NGEO - the fact that you haven't suggests to me that you don't believe there would be a community consensus for that. BilledMammal (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community has already spoken.Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. The collective consensus to edit in a certain way (to endow CDPs with same status as incorporated communities, which can never be deleted), backed up by arguments made in those AfDs and demonstrated in the outcomes over several years, has more weight than the local consensus in any of them or at NGEOtalk. Djflem (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community has spoken to grant presumed notability, not inherent notability. If you want to change that, then you need to open a discussion at WP:NGEO. If you don't, then I would suggest to the closer that you have no confidence in your belief that the community endorses your position. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just state WP:CONLEVEL which is what applies. Consensus can change and how can NGEOtalk not apply when that's how the damn consensus eventually formed - discussion happened. That's how the entire WP:GEOLAND guidelines came to exist. – The Grid (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those were incorperated places having their own government so I'm pretty sure would pass GEOLAND and creating such articles that was was probably a good idea. If you look at Wivenhoe, Tasmania as an example in Tasmania it does include other facts but if GEOLAND#1 is satisfied then no other coverage is probably needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meadow_Oaks,_Florida&oldid=1078453234"