As noted above, this article was nominated for deletion and ended up getting redirected to the town article. I'm well aware that AFD-deleted content, if recreated, is eligible for speedy deletion under CSD #G4. However, the criteria note that it is speedy-able "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." Aside from the perhaps irregular discussion (the nominator voted after nomination, and only one other person voted), the reasons for deletion, according to the discussion, was that this article is basically a part of the town no more remarkable than any other. In restoring the article, I have therefore added an infobox showing that it's treated separately by multiple sources, and I have added into the text multiple sources specifically discussing or otherwise using the CDP, including one altogether non-Census related page depending on the CDP. Between adding these sources and expanding the article's size by 238% (even without the features of the infobox, an increase of 44%), I believe that I have both demonstrated the notability of this topic and caused it to be significantly different from the deleted version. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
