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. MBisanz ^talk 18:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 Trailer Park, Arizona[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. Individual trailer-parks are not inherently notable. Note that this was previously PRODed, but the article creator removed the PROD (passes wp:geoland, whose first sentence says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"). They must be referring to the name being listed in the USGS Geographic Names Information System. A entry in that database merely means the name is or has been used on some map; it is not legal recognition - it is just a trivial mention. WP is not a directory; the article is two sentences and is unlikely to be expandable as there is no coverage. Common sense clearly puts this in the WP:GEOLAND category of 'Populated places without legal recognition which are only notable with "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" MB 15:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Whatever our relevant local geographical notability standard is, this should clearly be failing it as is. The USGS aren't interested and neither should we be. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, the listing in the USGS system is the standard which marks a place as a legally recognized populated place. It's been the standard throughout Wikipedia for a while now. Not saying I agree with that standard, but it is the standard. The definition from the USGS regarding what populated place means: "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." The USGS clearly marks the class of the named location, and in this instance it is clearly labeled as a "populated place". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS don't list it (if you search by name). They do list an, "A and F Trailer Court", which is nearby but not at the precise location given here. Is that the same place? Why the name discrepancy? Are we linking the right USGS record? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley - You're spot on, the article needs to be retitled. I didn't notice the difference in name (sloppy of me), I took it off the list of places in Arizona, and then didn't make the correction. If the consensus is to keep I'll change the name. Don't think it appropriate to change during the course of an AfD discussion. Thanks for pointing it out. But "Court" is the correct appellation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is it even the same place being referred to?

I'm OK with keeping any place that the USGS have as a record (it's pointless, but we have to draw a line somewhere). However this article is failing to demonstrate that, no matter what it's called. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused... there's a link in the article to the USGS record. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is there? The USGS link in the article seems to be to a different place. The name is different, the location is different. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you're right, Andy Dingley - The coordinates were wrong. That's fixed now. As I said, if this is not deleted, I'll correct the name at that point - might be confusing to correct it now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone who's been through quite a few AfDs related to populated places and probably helped establish the USGS standard, this doesn't meet it. Unincorporated places are typically held to that standard, but neighborhoods of a larger city (which the subject is) must be notable in their own right, and even places that are recently-established real estate developments with names aren't necessarily notable on the same level as an established community. This article fails on both counts. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forks Mobile Home Park, Washington, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waltlou Mobile Home Park, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balle Mobile Home Park, Alabama for some of the relevant precedents around trailer parks in particular.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete It would have to be quite a trailer part; and I see no : [https://www.google.com/#q=%22A-1+Trailer+Park%22&tbm=nws} indication that this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even if it were renamed, I'm still not convinced there would be enough convincingly to suggest the needed convincing information especially considering "Trailer park" is part of the name, regardless if the name can be changed. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and as failing my standards. There is no evidence of how many people live in this trailer park, so unless it is many thousands, I'd say it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2016 (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.