Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coxs Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey
As this is not an incorporated place, it would help to actually look at , which {{u|Magnolia677}} references to justify deletion - '''"Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."''' GNIS is a reliable and verifiable source, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/localnames.txt New Jersey Locality Search is also a reliable and verifiable source, but it too is not sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. The article for Fair Play, New Jersey created by Magnolia677 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fair_Play,_New_Jersey&oldid=634909350 here with only a GNIS source does not meet the  notability standard. The article for Coxs Corner under discussion here did not meet this standard as created. I concur with those who specify a minimum two-source standard, and this is what the definition of "multiple, independent reliable sources" would appear to require. Under this clear definition of , the original versions of the Fair Play and Coxs Corner articles should each have been turned into redirects to the parent municipality article (as Magnolia677 would seem to agree here, though he offers no acceptable rationale for deletion rather than turning it into a redirect). Data from GNIS is duplicated in other sources -- such as Google Maps, Mapquest and Zillow, among many other such mapping and location-based search sites -- and the use of a GNIS source combined with one of these GNIS mirrors does not constitute a second independent source. The book source added to the Coxs Corner article by RAN is a second independent source here and that meets this bare minimum multiple source standard, which is why the article as it currently exists should be retained per 
— User:Alansohn, 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GEOLAND (Wikipedia:Notability)