- 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Foulk Woods, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Since someone wanted to argue out this non-notable subdivision, here we are. I'm sure we'll find the same sort of local paper coverage, but since there's no claim to notability in the article, unless someone can come up with one, it's no different from the hundreds already deleted. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually it does. The first two are routine real estate section material that get published everywhere; the third is a press release from the time of the subdivision's construction, and the fourth is a name drop. This is all the stuff of ordinary local coverage and is hardly significant, and there's still no claim to notability, because it's just one of a hundred Wilmington/Newark/New Castle ssubdivisions. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What absolutely does not matter (totally irrelevant) is that it's one of a hundred hundred Wilmington/Newark/New Castle ssubdivisions. Djflem (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BeanieFan11: Do you intend to expand the article with above non-trivial references (which appear to have been knowingly mischaracterised)? Djflem (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll expand the article soon, using the sources above and other articles in Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djflem: I tried to expand the article in this edit. You may need to clean it up as I'm not familiar with the guidelines for communities. Additional coverage that I found in my search includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, clearly passing GNG (Though I'm sure someone will call it all "just routine"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GEOLAND #2: "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."
- This location is not notable in accordance with the GNG.
- It has only trivial coverage.
- How does the subject of this article meet WP:GNG? Suppose that the subject was a person or a corporation. Would it be notable enough for an article? If a person was the subject of a puff piece in the paper does that make them notable? I think not. Why are we applying a different standard of notability to neighborhoods? What makes the subject of this article notable - that is different from other typical neighborhoods? How will this article be expanded in the future to be different from any other development?
- Looking at Foulk Woods specifically, GBooks has various trivial hits, a 1949 USGS bulletin lists it as a "suburban development". I found nothing in GBooks that indicates notability. Newspapers.com has trivial coverage for a typical suburban development, I found no articles that indicate notability.
- Recently, it seems that with Geography AfDs, there has been an increase of Keep votes. As a community, how will we reach consensus on these AfDs? New opinions are welcome. Should WP:GEOLAND be updated? If we can't reach consensus here, then updating the policy could be difficult. I encourage editors to review WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography. Cxbrx (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability certainly does not require "different from" - "same as", "just like" are not standards used on Wikipedia and are simply Wikipedia:PPOV. More participation? Good thing, no? More keep !votes is irrelevant; (is that comment on it being good or bad?). That could come from the fact there has been a lack of adequate Wikipedia:BEFORE with the nominations and lack or research by delete !voters, as has been the case with many recent AFDS. Djflem (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we have a difference of a opinion about notability. Is every tree in a forest notable, or is the forest notable? Etc. I've found that Mangoe's WP:BEFORE to be quite good, though I believe in the past I believe I have not always agreed with them. In general, I've spent quite a bit of effort trying researching Geography AfDs, my standard is that I like to find at least one WP:RS non-trivial source about the location, two is even better. I do feel that having a post office helps indicate notability, but I'm pretty much alone in this opinion. With this article, I'm just not sure what else will be added to the article to improve it? In other articles, I've seen additions (Green Meadow, Delaware, Edenridge, Delaware) by yourself and other editors about the names of the builders etc., and though find these to be somewhat WP:MILL, at least the article has been improved. It seems that there are plenty of editors that would prefer to keep these articles, so they will stay for the time being. I don't think more keep !votes is good or bad, I think that there is a set of editors who are more inclined to !vote keep than there were in the past. What strikes me is that amount of time people put in to some of the AfDs (Landenberg Junction, Delaware), but the article remains basically unchanged. I do feel that editors like Mangoe, Hog Farm, Reywas92, Dlthewave and others have done a lot in cleaning up mass-produced GNIS junk articles, by editors like Carlossuarez46, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive830#Carlossuarez46_mass-creating_articles. In looking at Geo AfDs in the distant past, it seems like there were more !vote keeps. I'm happy to let the pendulum swing the other way towards !vote keep for awhile. I'm happy to see all the Geo AfDs get attention even if I don't necessary agree with the results and I'm probably going to move on to other wiki tasks for the time being. I may jump in on Geo AfDs that have not gotten much attention and have been relisted. Cxbrx (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've certainly appreciated your research on these AfDs (and it's a pretty thankless task). I think the pendulum is mostly being swung by people now doing more in-depth research (specifically in old newspapers), and actual articles springing up at the site of an AfD (rather than "it's good" / "it sucks" arguments). jp×g 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument in AFD discussions. It certainly should not be for nominations, as is the case here: "it's no different from the hundreds already deleted". GEOLAND say: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. If there's a problem with that, no one is required to participate (and certainly not nominate). Djflem (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PS:@Cxbrx: To avoid confusion, this is not a direct response to above, but a general comment.Djflem (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAND, per the sources from BeanieFan11. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This and the other recent AfDs on Wilmington's suburban developments are all being driven by a novel attempt at a guideline: that all neighborhoods of major cities are notable because their names appear in articles in those city's papers. People keep arguing based on articles in the main Wilmington paper(s) (and in this timeframe they were actually only a single paper with, initially, a morning and an evening edition), but looking at the articles in question, most of them are simply name drops to locate a person or an event, and the ones that look like actual coverage are either notices that something was being built, back in the days when that kind of coverage was routine, or equally routine real estate pages write-ups that every neighborhood gets in order to sell houses there. I just don't see it satisfying WP:GNG, but in any case the numerous guidelines limiting WP coverage of local politicians and the like are evidence that simplyl appearing in the papers from time to time isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is a failed proposal. Wikipedia:5P1: Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. (The wording was changed by the revision made at 02:11 on 12 Feb 2013. The reference to gazeteers appears to have been introduced on 17 November 2008.) Djflem (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although I see the merit of arguments made to delete. The nominated revision and the current revision are miles apart; there's now a whopping fourteen references, many of which articles specifically about this place. Whether the place has inherent notability shouldn't matter if there's significant coverage. jp×g 23:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV Djflem (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per BeanieFan11.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2021 (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.