Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Meadow, Delaware

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 no consensus. The result was no consensus. A number of editors have provided more sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Meadow, 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)

Deprodded. This really seems like a run-of-the-mill subdivision, I'm not finding significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG aside from a community profile and an article that mentions Joe Biden lived there in 1964. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Delaware Place Names lists it as a "suburban development"; no real claim to notability as such. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know what is considered SIGCOV for communities so I'll just list what I've found related to it and let someone else analyze it: this from The News Journal, this, also from The News Journal, this from Journal–Every Evening, this from The Morning News, this from Journal–Every Evening, this from Journal–Every Evening, and this from Journal–Every Evening. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does the amount of houses and/or population matter? Because there are at least 80 homes (and a bunch more if you include the bordering neighborhood, which Google Maps considers part). And, if Joe Biden's house, which is located down the street from it, was also considered part, there would be 100s of houses included in this development. I'm leaning towards Keep because three sources (this from The News Journal, this from Journal–Every Evening, and this from The Journal–Every Evening) appear significant enough for me. I might expand this article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bordering neighborhood appears to be the just-as-generic and non-notable Shipley Heights, Delaware or Lynnfield, Delaware. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly expanded the article in this edit, adding nine references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. It's not notable to just paste in the text of advertisements and pretend it's encyclopedic material. Nor it is notable encylopedic content to copy a testimony about one time the creek got high. Just fluff about a run-of-the-mill development. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The community was founded in 1954, and consisted of 47 "ranch-type houses," air conditioned by York Refrigeration & Condition" Sheesh, talk about pointless ref-bomb type junk details. Sure, back in 1954 this ad thought that relevant to inform potential homebuyers, but that's not independent coverage for notability, due weight, or encyclopedic relevance. Do we need to include from this advertorial that the washer and dryer came from Kelvinator and the surfaces are Formica? Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like the sources provided above meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources above [1],[2], [3] are all literally advertisements and a couple others are like advertorials saying what's for sale. The last one from The News Journal is their then-weekly "Community Profile", similar to these on Melanie Woods, Charter Oaks, Cobblestones, Fairfield, etc. Let's not waste time on articles on such generic subdivisions/housing developments like the one I grew up in. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And since the News-Journal is the local Wilmington newspaper, there's almost no way that a story about a local neighborhood is enough to make that place notable; it ordinarily would take substantial coverage from outside the area. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is failed proposal. Wikipedia:AUD is the guideline. Or is the suggestion that this "local neighborhood" be redirected to Wilmington? Djflem (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having compared the two, I do not see how this place passes either standard. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to pass the failed proposal (which was essentially being suggested above). Extensive regional sources been provided provided, as per the guideline. Djflem (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Advertising sources have mostly been removed, though considering that they are archival & certainly no longer promotional they could be very useful for Wikipedia:Verifiability of information, if not notability, but there are others which satisfactorily establish that. Djflem (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG.Djflem (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that it does. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it does meet GNG with SIGCOV from the Journal–Every Evening (1, 2), The Morning News (1), and The News Journal (1). Some other coverage includes this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These epitomize local coverage of a suburban development. Look, the Morning News, and Evening Journal, and the News-Journal are all the same newspaper, published by the same company on the same presses at least as far back as I can remember in the 1970s. It's just the main Wilmington paper, and this is typical of local coverage in a metropolitan area. It doesn't satisfy GNG because it is completely routine. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not the same. The Journal–Every Evening (formed by a merger of The Evening Journal and Every Evening) merged with The Morning News in the '60s or '70s, becoming The News Journal. Until then they were separate papers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. When I lived in the area in the mid 1970s, the Morning News and Evening Journal were published as separate editions, in the same typeface and all, by the same publisher. Acto our own article, the "merger" into a single edition wasn't accomplished until it was bought up by Gannett in 1989, but even before that they were simply morning and evening editions from the same publisher. In any case, the point remains: this is as local as coverage gets, and is typical of said coverage of city suburbs. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I may be incorrect, but was it the same in the 1950s? The coverage I call significant, besides the 1993 article by The News Journal, was published between 1954 and 1958. Also, per Djflem, if the coverage is local it doesn't matter—its still SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the inclusion of lots of reliable third-party sources that demonstrate notability. There has been a quite significant expansion since nomination (compare before and after). There seems to be a fierce edit war on the article between participants in this AfD (oscillating between a long version and a short version), but even the short version easily clears GNG. jp×g 22:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a tiny housing development with less than 70 homes, no notability, no form of self governance. No reason it should be here. Superman7515 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Incorrect—there are between 80 and 120 homes in the development. 2. Incorrect—I have presented extensive regional sources, establishing notability IMO. 3. Correct, but it doesn't matter whether or not it governs itself. 4. Incorrect—If a topic meets GNG it should be here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:28, 18 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.