Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaire, 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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Delaire, Delaware

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't how we missed this in our first pass over NCC, but this one is plainly bogus when the maps and aerials are considered. The name doesn't even appear until the 2014 topo, and when it does show up, it is placed in a spot that, after a hundred years of maps, is still blank space. As in, it's so blank that someone has to be deliberately keeping it bare of trees and structures. And in fact, someone is: the area is the grounds of the Cauffiel estate, which you can rent out for your posh weddings and such. The GNIS spot has drifted southwest a little, so that it now sits next to an old bank barn that is also part of the Cauffiel property; the neighborhood beyond is Bellevue, attested to by decade upon decade of topos. I have no ldea where the name Delaire came from, but I note that it gets false hits galore in GBooks because it is apparently a common mis-scan of "Delaware". Anyway, this spot is obviously not a settlement of any kind. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Delaire is a subdivision which as far as I can tell is located on both sides of the Cauffiel estate, hence the location in the middle of the lawn. The three 1940 advertisements which were provided as deprod rationale tell us that it existed but don't establish notability. The only substantial independent coverage is one of those routine neighborhood profiles that the Wilmington News Journal used to do, which doesn't impress me. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Another generic subdivision/housing development like the one I grew up in. An unremarkable neighborhood profile is not adequate for notability. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the following sources should be enough for a GNG pass:          and . BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not having looked at every one of these, with the one exception of a routine community facility news item, they are all "hey, there's this new subdivision!" real estate advertizing-disguised-as-news, published in the local newspaper. They don't satisfy GNG. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) excludes local news? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Significant". Routine coverage dfrom a local paper is not significant. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", as is the case here. Djflem (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per MILL. Not an empty area; people live there in houses and apparently have neighborhood disputes over lawns and whatnot, and a state Senator was born there. But it's a run-of-the-mill subdivision. BBQboffin (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think pointing to an essay is a valid reason to delete, as it meets GNG which is the actual guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies GNG.Djflem (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. The coverage is routine material like unto that about any residential development. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. How does this not pass? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as at least a notable neighbourhood based on the sources presented above and in the article. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources provided by are sufficient for us to verify the existence of the neighborhood and to pass WP:GNG on top of that. I see multiple instances of non-trivial coverage there by independent RS, so I think that the neighborhood is notable. The article should be expanded using those references so as to no longer be a geostub, but that an article needs to be expanded is no reason to delete it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.