Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reston, Florida

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. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reston, Florida

Unremarkable Place of no note. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources are available. Sebwite (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs expansion, but not deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Niteshift36. The article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. (I'm the author.) Tim Ross (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this place appears to be an informal neighborhood rather than a town. I don't which reliable sources are being referred to above. If the subject were a settlement such as a village or incorporated city or something similar, I would have called for keeping it as long as its verifiable, since subjects like that are traditionally covered in encyclopedias, but I don't think Reston, FL is any of that. Rather, the subject appears to be a neighborhood in the town Havana, Florida. While a collection of houses which is recognized by the authorities as a separate entity deserves its own article, a collection of houses called "Reston" by some commercial property developer is not inherently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a housing development. I'm a hardline community inclusionist, but this falls below the bar. --NE2 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the interest of some consistency (based, I'm afraid, on personal observations rather than references), I'd like to point out that there are now articles on five unincorporated communities in Gadsden County, Florida: the subject Reston, along with Hinson, Lake Tallavana, Mount Pleasant, and Scotland. None of these are neighborhoods of other towns. Scotland is a good deal closer to Havana than is Reston, and Hinson may be as well. I believe that Hinson, Scotland, Reston, and Lake Tallavana all receive mail via Havana (zip code 32333). Although both Lake Tallavana and Reston began as commercial developments, that was 30-40 years ago, and these communities have had no such commercial connections for a long time. All of these places are population pockets of perhaps 100-300, more or less surrounded by less developed areas. If some of these are sufficiently notable for articles, they all should, perhaps, be treated in the same fashion. Tim Ross (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right about Lake Tallavana, but the others seem to have grown up around railroad stations or intersections of old roads, and so are likely to have more historical information available. --NE2 20:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I originally nominated this for deletion as it appeared to me to be nothing more than an exclusive housing estate, it is not a town or city, and as such it is of no note as nothing special happens or has happened there. It is no different in that respect to the housing estate where I live, and where I live does not merit an article either. As for the comment that we already have four other such developments in the same area with their own articles then perhaps the answer is to review them all and judge each on it's own merits? Trevor Marron (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Having looked on Google I can see no shops or municipal buildings? Are there any? If not then it is just a housing development of no note in my opinion. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll always be in favour of keeping articles on well-established named settlements, but I see no evidence that this, with its hundred homes, is any more notable a similarly-sized street or apartment complex. I'd certainly be willing to reconsider if any of the sources mentioned above are provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a recently built exurban housing development. No sources in article to indicate notability as a stand-alone article. --Polaron | Talk 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - It is sad that the two attempts to develop a consensus on notability for populated places failed through lack of consensus: the first and the second. We are left to decide notability in such matters by using only the general notability guidelines. This means the existence of "reliable sources". The two listed with the article are what is available: (1) a listing in City-Data.com, which incorrectly, as noted above, names it a "neighborhood in Havana, Florida", but correctly shows the location and configuration of the community; and (2) the local homeowners' association website, which is more informative. These are, I think, clearly sufficient to show the existence, location, and extent of Reston. This is a considerable improvement over what we have for any other unincorporated community in the county. Sure, it's not an especially important place, but it is named, has reasonably clear boundaries, and is not part of any other community. These factors, along with the modest but present showing of notability should be enough for a "keep". The fact that it is exurban and was commercially initiated (some 30-40 years ago) is not really relevant to the issue of notability. Tim Ross (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You are going to need a better case to establish notability for a housing development of 100 homes. If this was a city or a town, then I think there would be a case that could be made. Housing developments are generally not notable. Do you realize if this one passed how many of these we could add for any major metro area like Vegas or LA or Miami? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even more comments - Actually, Reston is not a housing development. It started that way, though, quite a few years ago. So did many, many other Florida communities. As to the large number of similar communities that could be added to Wikipedia, the point is well taken. You are correct, although it should be noted that such communities are already being added, I think, in considerable numbers. Even in Gadsden County, Florida, Lake Tallavana has the same characteristics as Reston. If "started as a housing development" or "has few or no businesses" or "has only 100 or less homes" are disqualifiers, either singly or in unison, there does not seem to be any recognition of that, of which I am aware, in any of the various Wikipedia:Notability articles. Those might be useful suggestions for a future Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) 3, but I don't think they apply now. Tim Ross (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2009 (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.