Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey

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 Redirect all to the article for the corresponding municipality. If the articles identified by Tinton5 or others are substantially improved to show notability a restoration remains possible. I cannot automatically perform the redirection and leave this up to the nominator, Reywas92. Sandstein 12:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Village, New Jersey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Also

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Meadows, New Jersey, these are subdivisions/housing developments largely sourced to real estate websites. No indication of substantive sources establishing notability to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article for corresponding municipality Where articles have no meaningful content other than a statement that the place exists, there's neither any need not any benefit to have a standalone article. No prejudice against recreating any of these articles should additional meaningful sourced material be available to create an article with some meat. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article for corresponding municipality and, where applicable, to section #Geography for those articles with no substantive content other than a statement that the place exists, as was the the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Meadows, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just Parkway Village, New Jersey, Quaker Bridge, Mercer County, New Jersey, Lakeside Park, New Jersey, Mountainview, Mercer County, New Jersey, & Weber Park, New Jersey and redirect others to corresponding municipality page specifically on its geography section. The ones to keep have potential for growth, as Quaker Bridge [2] is a notable and historic area which houses the Quaker Bridge Mall. Tinton5 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significant coverage that provides notability for these neighborhoods? The Quaker Bridge Mall is listed as being in Clarksville, Mercer County, New Jersey, perhaps this history can be included there. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Tinton5's comment makes me think that a WP:MULTIAFD is not a good procedure for these articles as there are multiple articles which we may need to examine and discuss notability on an individual basis. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination and not do a bundled AFD, or at least omit the ones raised by TInton 5 and nominate those articles individually. Otherwise it is going to be too confusing of a conversation.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good procedure to mass-produce hundreds of stubs about non-notable subdivisions! It would be a massive waste of everyone's time to vote on these – and the scores more bulk-created NJ subdivisions – individually! Fine if this is relisted to give people time to review them; none of Tintin5's mentions pass GEOLAND2: no significant coverage about generic housing developments. More than happy to strike any if actual sources are provided rather than a hand-wave of "potential". Reywas92^Talk 06:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we have an editor claiming that a good portion of these are notable. It's too burdensome on a closer to find consensus when we are having to argue over the notability of multiple articles in one conversation. Further, it's too burdensome and complex of an AFD to be welcoming for comment by other users (which is why very few editors have participated) because it is overly complicated. In other words, its a bad procedure to actually achieve the purposes of an AFD in this case.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not claiming they're notable, he makes a specious claim of "potential". {u|Tintin5}}, do you care to provide any evidence for this? You're welcome to recreate them with significant coverage from a redirect. What's really burdensome is when someone makes hundreds of one-liners and fails to actually establish notability. What's complex and unwelcoming is dozens of separate discussions on identically non-notable topics since no one wants to waste time copy-and-pasting the same comment since they all fail GEOLAND2 the same way. But fine, struck Quaker Bridge since at least a link was included. Or strike all five! But I don't care for procedural nonsense when there's so much spam auto-generated without sources establishing their place. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, asking that the group present evidence for multiple articles and then individually vote on multiple articles is not good process. I suggest at a bare minimum removing the ones listed by Tintin5 from this nomination and then renominating those individually so a proper WP:BEFORE search for sources and an evaluation of those sources can be done. It's just going to get too confusing otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think MULTI is a problem here; I looked through the articles and they're all the same and can be treated as a class. There's no obvious claim to notability for any of these unincorporated communities. If one of them is actually notable, then someone's free to re-create with actual content and references. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2020 (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.