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. I find the arguments for Delete more persuasive that this subdivision is not notable and is run-of-the-mill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silverside Heights, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another generic 50-home subdivision/housing development. Two sources linked when deprodded are advertisements ("an attractive developement", "modern in every phase", "a handsome stone dwelling", "an attractive built-in corner cupboard" and the third is the routine "Community Profile" the local paper has done on scores of subdivisions. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sourcing consists of thinly-veiled promotional coverage from when the subdivision was first built and a routine "neighborhood profile", none of which are sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BEFORE check of web, news and books do not show sufficient sources to pass the general notability guideline. While there is a weak argument this place may meet GEOLAND's notability presumption, I consider that due to lack of sourcing WP:PAGEDECIDE can apply - subject does not warrant a standalone article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," having multiple articles covering the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content," see the following: Kid City from The News Journal; FINE HOME FOR THOMAS G. METZ from The Evening Journal; Ten Silverside Heights Homes Sold; More Planned from The Morning News; and FINE NEW HOME AT SILVERSIDE HEIGHTS from The Evening Journal (part 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of these are the same advertisements I linked above. Even in 1927 people knew that "The H.B. Smith hot water boiler is conveniently located. Two eight-inch I-beams are installed, which insure against any settling of the house." isn't independent journalism, right next to the dozen ads saying "The cement and terra cotta pipe used in the new home of Lawrence P. Talley were furnished by E.J. Hollingsworth Co.", and a century later we shouldn't pretend this is encyclopedic content or that a generic subdivision is notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep Of the sources provided, "Kid City" and "10 homes sold" seem GNG-compliant, but the "Fine New Home" articles are not as they are not about the neighbourhood itself (i.e. not SIGCOV). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 homes sold" is also an advertisement and does not contribute. In 1940 they might not have been required to have a "sponsored content" disclaimer, but no jounalist was independently writing "Real wood-burning fireplaces have been installed in the living rooms, and venetian blinds add to the general beauty of the homes." as if it was really a public service to endorse "Mr. Julian personally supervises all operations in the Silverside Heights development, making sure all work is properly and soundly done"...read the rest of the page beyond the clipping and see the rest of the ad on the right for "A Low Cost House With High-Price Features – A.A. JULIAN". Turning the page to p.32, you have a picture of a "Fortunato-built stone house [that] will be open tomorrow for visitors" and a picture of another home "equipped with an oil burner" that's also "open for inspection all day tomorrow." Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize advertorials for new housing developments, nor local profiles of where "Everyone is at least a 'howdy' neighbor." Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Leaning Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NOT, WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND: 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 by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. There is nothing notable or noteworthy about this unincorporated community beyond "it exists" but so do millions of others around the globe. It is also noncompliant with WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Atsme 💬 📧 12:39, 10 September 2022 (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.