Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devonshire, 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Devonshire, Delaware

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subdivision lacks sufficient coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG, with little potential for expansion beyond the current stub. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Run-of-the-mill subdivision does not stand out for notability. Reywas92Talk 13:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to this source, which was inexplicably removed from the article, there are other sources in the archives:     . Meets GEOLAND and GNG. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 12:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can speak to the reason that the first source was removed: This news article is about the opening of a new community center at the Brandywine Town Center shopping mall, and the only connection to the topic is that the Devonshire Civic Association happened to be the first group to hold a meeting there. The community center is not part of Devonshire and I didn't think it merited a mention is the article.
 * The only source that could really contribute to GNG would be the "community profile" which is just a routine public interest feature in the local paper, all of the others are just passing mentions about people who happened to live in the neighborhood or minor happenings in the area. We wouldn't say a BLP with this level of coverage meets GNG (lots of minor public officials in my town have more newspaper mentions than this, but it's not enough to write an article about) and we should hold neighborhoods like this one to the same standard. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What? 5P1 clearly starts that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. Biographies of living persons have a much higher standard than most articles (for obvious reasons) and likely why that guideline is much more extensive than GEOLAND. Djflem (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND uses GNG for non-legally-recognized and WP:BASIC says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'd say they're equivalent. I'm not sure where the idea came from that GEOLAND has less-stringent standards than other topics. –dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can say they're equivalent, if you like. BLP guidelines (which you brought up) are more specific. Djflem (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable housing development Superman7515 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's one personal point of view, there are others.Djflem (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * delete A suburban development with no claim to notability. All the coverage above is routine local coverage which GNG and common sense say isn't good enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.