Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Vista Estates III, Arizona

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Vista Estates III, Arizona

[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)

Not only is this just a subdivision, it's the third phase of a subdivision. Fails WP:GNG (had to drop the III to discover Desert Vista Estates is just a subdivision) and WP:GEOLAND, and only sourced to the GNIS database (and a census data aggregator which uses the GNIS database), which is accurate for the names of places but not for whether a place satisfies our notability reqirements. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an advert but we could possibly redirect it to the neighborhood or place it's located in.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Tucson, Arizona#Southern Tucson but it seems so insignificant in that context a mention there doesn't seem appropriate.----Pontificalibus 08:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subdivisions are almost never notable, unless they morph into being a true neighborhood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another subdivision that would need to meet GNG pre GEOLAND#2. Another entry in GNIS that is sourced only to the ephemeral "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." MB 16:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time for another mass AFD... GEOLAND explicitly says that subdivisions are not notable without substantive sources, and none exist. Mass-production of non-notable permastubs was malformed. No redirect. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subdivisions are not notable without SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 05:38, 2 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.