Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyland Estates, Virginia

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyland Estates, Virginia

[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)

Although it's a CDP, this housing development has no significant coverage beyond government maps and tables which are specifically excluded from the WP:NGEO guideline. The only sources that I could find were real estate listings and an article about a fire that mentions it in passing as a "development in Linden". This is insufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CDPs are presumed notable as government info can furnish at least a decent article. In addition to the source mentioned above, I also found [1] [2] [3]. This calls it "an established community high above the Blue Ridge Mountains". Gunfire is prohibited here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is run-of-the-WP:MILL coverage of a real estate transaction that describes it as a "subdivision". This is a different Skyland Estates in Columbia, South Carolina. This also describes it as a "subdivision". I know there are several opinions on the inherent notability of CDPs, but none of these sources are anything more than a passing mention except for the community website. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per dlthwave's nom and subsequent comment. "Presumed" notable doesn't mean "must be" notable. This one is not. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a populated, census designated place, which easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Worst case should be merged with Linden, but I don't support that. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, why do say a CDP "easily passes" GEOLAND? It's a census tract and a housing development, both of which are excepted from GEOLAND? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Populated? Check. Legally recognised? By the census, if it doesn't have any formal legal status. It's not a census tract, it's a census-designated place, which require the community's name be "recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" (not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes") which should be enough to pass WP:GEOLAND, which should be and has been a very easy notability hurdle to clear. Otherwise this unincorporated area where people live wouldn't be associated to a place with an article. The US makes it a bit squishy with their land use planning rules unfortunately... SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 16 April 2020 (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.