Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Florida

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Florida. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Florida|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Florida.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Florida

Sofia Symonds

Sofia Symonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

While the text of this of article created in November 2021 is not substantially identical enough to be an outright WP:G4 candidate, it appear to me that the May 2019 Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Symonds concerns still apply here: WP:NMODEL, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. I note in particular that the purported USA Today reference includes a pop-up disclaimer: "this story is paid for by an advertiser. Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content." As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cameron Herrin

Cameron Herrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:PERP. Generic. It is essentially WP:BLP1E and fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 03:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It all stems from the one event. Without that event, none of it would happened, which is the very definition of WP:BLP1E. The citations above have to remind their reader who the person; it is the description of transitory. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Can you say more about how WP:BLP1E applies? There are three criteria there: single event, low profile, and not well documented. I am seeing 4 years of regular media coverage from multiple sources, a social media celebrity whose face and name are published continuously, and discussions about this person's lifestyle outside of the event. Why you find that BLP1E is a fit here? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a clear case of WP:PERP. And since the event itself had no long-lasting effects, renaming the article is inappropriate as well. And as scope_creep as already pointed out, this is also a case of WP:BIOIE.Onel5969 TT me 16:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969: There have been multiple long lasting community changes at Bayshore Boulevard where the collision occurred, and now the event is a matter of local history. Sources [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] These are all about the community; I think that other changes include the social discussions about subject of the biography also. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Paris Visone

Paris Visone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

References are primary interviews. Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Meadow Oaks, Florida

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

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)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 [8] [9] [10] [11]. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 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.[12]The Grid (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep CDPs are certainly unincorporated communities and as an encyclopedia Gpedia precedent documents (all of) them as one feature/function of a gazetteer. Gpedia should remain consistent with the US government on this coverage. Djflem (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    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. [13]The Grid (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
From Gpedia:"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)
  • 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)
@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)
  • I don't think I can reply to Djflem in a better way but...why are you looking at the Gpedia 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)
@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)
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. [14]
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)
  • 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)
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)
The consensus is that CDPs are kept because they represent identifiable communities.Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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. [15]The Grid (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion

Check here for any current CfD.

Florida-related Templates for Deletion

  • None at present

Florida-related Miscellaneous for Deletion

  • None at present

Proposed deletions

  • None at present


<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FFlorida">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Florida&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>