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. Enough sources seem to have been provided to result in a decent consensus as to its notability, whether from WP:GEOLAND #1 or simply via the general notability guideline, or indeed both. As there are aspects of this place that make it more significant than a general HOA-managed subdivision, this is explicitly not to be taken as any kind of consensus regarding the greater notability or lack thereof of other such things; if the notability guidelines for places are becoming ambiguous about these kinds of places because of the way subdivisions can evolve into fully legally recognised communities, then that discussion needs to be held there. ~ mazca ^talk 12:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interlachen, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

It's a housing development/neighborhood with a homeowners' association with Fairview, Oregon addresses. Can't find any sources establishing notability per GEOLAND2, prod removal was just WP:ITSOLD. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fairview, Oregon or delete. No coverage. buidhe 03:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't just a subdivision, it's a notable unincorporated place/community that is distinct from Fairview. [1] Even has (had?) its own county utility district. Easy keep. [2] and urban planning area [3] and referred to as a community by Portland State. [4] We're a gazetteer and while there's been a number of non-notable places we've reviewed and deleted recently, this doesn't mean that every unincorporated place isn't notable. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Running water to your neighborhood and paying for it yourself is not notability. There are so many thousands of utility districts, and merely because the county has zoned their little single street for low-density residential is not notability. This is literally no different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andalusia, Arizona etc. except rather than governed within a city's border, it's governed by the county commission. None of this is significant coverage or warrants a separate article for this little homeowners' association; mention on Fairview, Oregon remains an ATD. Reywas92^Talk 04:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I manifestly disagree. I'm pretty familiar with both the Portland and Phoenix metro area. Phoenix suffered from having a not of GNIS stubs on non-notable subdivisions, which have been mostly cleaned up. Nobody has ever called the Andalusia subdivision "Andalusia" in the Phoenix metro area - it's within Scottsdale and was just a marketing ploy. Interlachen, on the other hand, is a distinct place, separate from Fairview (which is incorporated), and is known as such. It's frequently mentioned as being "in Fairview" but a quick look at a map shows it's an enclave. [5] Sourcing's not the best, but it's definitely a populated place and should be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia also serves as a gazetter. Please see Topo Map: Interlachen Topo Map in Multnomah County Interlachen is not located within the Fairview city limits. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is false; per WP:5P, Wikipedia "contains features" of a gazetteer. Gazetteers don't normally have separate pages for every entity. WP:NGEO clearly 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." You can try to show there is significant coverage of it, but this topo map is irrelevant, it is just a generic neighborhood with a damn HOA. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is where you're wrong - this is not a "generic neighborhood" but rather a specifically unincorporated residential community which is known as such, as opposed to the Arizona stubs we've deleted, which appeared to be non-notable subdevelopments which were then incorporated into the larger city. The maps support the fact this is NOT a neighborhood within Fairview. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Multnomah County, Oregon since this community is not within Fairview. A small unincorporated community is no different than a subdivison, neighborhood, etc. There is not enough non-trivial infomation/sources on which to write an encyclopedic article. If it were really well-known as a community, then there would be more written about it. Un-incorporated communities often do meet GNG, but I don't see enough coverage for this one. MB 04:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's plenty of coverage, it's just damn hard to search for since Interlachen mostly brings the Minnesota country club. Further coverage of the place as a community and populated place: [6] Also, unincorporated doesn't necessarily mean not legal, as I've noted before, it has its own specific county zoning district. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_hamlets_and_other_places. We have tended to keep hamlets, if its historically known as a community. Many suburban communities were started as subdivisions in the first half of the 20th century, e.g. Kensington and Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, Rio Rancho started as a housing development known as "Rio Rancho Estates", and Rajneeshpuram started and ended as an intentional community. It passes my standards easily - it's outside of a city boundary, has its own incorporated homeowners' association, and it has at least 120 people living there. Since it's 90 years old, I am satisfied this is not merely spam for a realtor to sell new homes. This little community appears to have been a summer/weekend home area, but is now within the suburbs. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per SportingFlyer's additional sources showing its community status. As long as significant coverage exists in independent, secondary, reliable sources, it meets WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I expanded it. Valfontis (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage beyond routine features such as HOA, utility/zoning districts etc. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per SportingFlyer and my expansion, and the availability of coverage in newspapers.com. (to which I have a full subscription, if you need me to look something up). This article about a 90-year-old community is a victim of "recentism" and "can't find it on the internet". Sources exist. Redirecting to Fairview is inappropriate. It may get annexed to Fairview eventually and can be merged then. Failing "keep", merge to Multnomah County. Full deletion is silly. It appears that the gazetteer function of the wiki and the GNIS term "populated place" are now up for debate, which is fair, but in my 10+ years of editig and 100s of articles I have started on various Oregon podunks (and I do argue for deletion on random Oregon podunks, like Blue Bucket Cow Camp, Oregon), I have never seen an article where it is proven people actually live deleted. FWIW, Oregon has some wacky land-use laws. Yes this !vote is full of AFD:NOT or whatever that advice is about how not to argue at an AfD. Feel free to take me down about WP:ILIKEIT. Cheers. Valfontis (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per Bearian. Valfontis (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It straight up passes WP:GEOLAND #1. Some subdivisions in the Phoenix area didn't as they were never distinct and separate places from the cities they were annexed into, and the GNIS isn't wholly reliable for determining whether something passes WP:GEOLAND #1, but an unincorporated community recognised by its county as a distinct district is in fact legally recognised, as is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: This should prove interesting. There are over 2000 HOA's in the Portland area. The "greater Portland" area has 95 communities listed in 6 districts with the East Portland Community ending just east of the subject area. There are approximately 351,000 homeowner associations in the US and I will offer that most of them post to the local newspapers so we can likely find some form of printed sources on many, if not a majority, and probably all have a GNIS "feature". If we justify the keeping of an individual community HOA, which is what this appears to be, we can surely just as likely justify HOA districts that are far larger and more complex. If we go with the "historical" aspect that may narrow it to the tens of thousands. The USGS term for a "populated place" is usually a city, settlement, town, village, like Alameda, Portland, Oregon, but I suppose 140 houses is a community. Otr500 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While the homes are covered by an HOA, this isn't an article on a homeowners association - it's an article on an unincorporated neighborhood (yes, governed by an HOA) but specifically recognised as a place name of an unincorporated community by the county. See Within the Gresham Area, Multnomah County is responsible for approximately twenty-eight miles of arterial roadways in the Cities of Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village, and the unincorporated residential area known as “Interlachen” that is located between Fairview Lake and Blue Lake (see Figure 2-2). from oregon.gov. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 14 January 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.