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. GlassCobra 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Acres[edit]

Linden Acres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. No context. No WP:RS. I wikified it, which included a link to Red Hook. Another editor assumed one of the NY locations listed on that disamb page is the correct location. however, there is no real indication where on Earth this place is. Unless the original author (or someone who knows for sure) can clarify, the article is worthless. Evb-wiki (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a stubby little stub, but it is a real place with the correct links, as mapquest shows [1]. RMHED (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on these clarifications and the mapquest evidence, I withdraw the nomination. Keep. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So now you are contradicting yourself? Tavix (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's what "I withdraw the nomination" generally means. Interestingly, withdrawals are not discussed anyplace I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although it is real place, it isn't notable at all. The article doesn't even have Demographics like most place articles. Quoting from hamlet (place): "Outside of the Adirondack Park, hamlets (in New York) are usually not legal entities and have no local government or official boundaries." Based on this, I say delete. Tavix (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because it has no official standing doesn't mean that it's not notable as its own community, which L.A. appears to be from the Mapquest evidence. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There seem to be two parts of Red Hook that are special because they have a separate water supply, but that's the only thing notable about them. They're just neighborhoods aka developments. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was the one who removed the prod template. The reason was not that I contested the deletion of the article per se, simply that the template had been added with the reason "no context". it took me all of 20 seconds of searching in other Wikipedia articles to find and add context, after which the reason given for the prod nomination was no longer valid. In cases like this, I often find that "no context" as a prod rationale is a cop-out for not actually seeing whether an article can be given context and expanded (no offence intended to Evb-wiki). In this specific case, I would lean towards keep if Linden Acres can be shown to be "a small hamlet", as its own article says, but a delete if, as the article for Red Hook, New York says, it is simply "a housing development'. Hopefully someone from that part of the world can confirm things one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Just in case some of you don't know: in New York, everywhere that's not a city is in a town — it's not a specific miniature semi-urbanised settlement like, say, Indiana towns would be. It's rather similar to a New England town, like a civil township with more impressive powers. By Mapquest, we can see that it's really there, and that it's a real community (not just a neighborhood, and old enough to be connected with the name of a major road) outside the Red Hook village limits. There's no reason to delete this, especially as Evbwiki has asked to withdraw it despite others' calls for deletions. Let's take it to the New York wikiproject and ask someone to source it and expand it. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mapquest is not at all a reliable source for the significance of a place name. They have place names in their database for subdivisions and the like. If you Mapquest my house, you'll find that it is a quarter-mile from some place called "Belleair, Virginia"; the only problem is, I've lived there for 12 years and I've never heard of this alleged place. --Russ (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case, check this GNIS page. You really can't get more authoritative than the GNIS. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While there is nothing in policy or guideline guaranteeing notability just out of the hamlet's mere existence, I do note that there are many articles based around neighborhoods, whether or not they possess independent zipcodes or are "census-designated areas." I'm not voting thumbs up or down myself, but I would definitely like to see something more than a mere statement that this place exists.  RGTraynor  20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Red Hook town article. There is a communities section in all New York town articles. This is the standard practice for hamlets which do not yet have sufficient content to warrant a separate article. Once there is enough verifiable content, we can split off the article again. But as of now, it should be redirected. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frankly, I wish that this weren't done so often, but there is plenty of precedent for such redirection. I still say keep it as a separate article, but doing this wouldn't be unusual. Nyttend (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be useful as a separate article but not in its current state. I'm sure someone will eventually put in information about why that residential subdivision was built, why the location was chosen, etc. But in its current state, it adds nothing new to what is already in the town article. If we can write something substantial, then yes we should separate the article. --Polaron | Talk 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I lived in that area for 25 years, I never heard of it. Doing some digging seems to indicate that it is a real place. The lack of sources in the article is, in my mind, not a reason to delete. So unless there is some proof that this is not a real place, then we need to keep it. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that (1) "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and (2) "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." See WP:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core content policies. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this principle apply to anything or only to "places"? Can any person who can be confirmed to exist have an article? If not, why are "places" treated differently? --Polaron | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It applies to everything on Wikipedia. Verfiability is the threshold, but thing (and people) must also be notable to be included. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So is Linden Acres notable? Based on the current state of the article, it does not appear to be. But since places often do have sourcing, it should not be deleted but temporarily redirected until the sourcing is added. --Polaron | Talk 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the keep voters suggest that the current state of the article is sufficient? This is better redirected for now as everything in the article is already in the town article. Until someone adds seomthing substantial that would make the town article too long, then redirect it. Should I write articles for all hamlets that currently redirect to the town that only say "X is a hamlet in town Y"? --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 23 December 2007 (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.