Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews Manor, Maryland

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews Manor, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a town that does not exist yet, and may never exist. there is nothing of significance in the area's history, and there is certainly no independent reliable sourcing. It reads like a brochure from the developer. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a verified settlement, as it appeares in the Geographic Names Information System, a reliable source; by long-standing AfD precedent, this makes it notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer and this community is verified. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NGEO. This is not legally-recognized. It's a part of a CDP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey and multiple branches of Maryland government, though. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS only recognizes names. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No different from any other populated place; the USGS recognises places and many of their attributes besides names. I don't understand why you say "does not exist yet" — the GNIS entry is from 1979, so it's been in existence for over thirty years. Moreover, why would you want to get rid of the title? If you don't think we should have an article against it, why is deleting it a better choice than redirecting it to the CDP? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2012 (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.